The book of Koheleth, commonly called Ecclesiastes : considered in relation to modern criticism, and to the doctrines of modern pessimism, with a critical and grammatical commentary and a revised translation

ee Α
wz 3
ri 7 ἢ a= = ν ;
= ΟΡ τς ab ee a cy ee aii. ἫΝ »" ries ee Ser aed Se sae ena eS “s SOE
; Ξ we A
: Ἂς x ἘΣ Ξ é
Ν Σ ᾿ Ν᾽
: ; oS Sistas Stes

Gaze, ee

THE BOOK OF KOHELETH.

THE BAMPTON LECTURES FOR 1878.
Second Edition, 8vo, cloth, price 14s.
ZECHARIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES,

Considered in relation to Modern Criticism:

WirH a CRITICAL AND GRAMMATICAL COMMENTARY, AND NIW
é TRANSLATION.

By the Rev. C. H. H. WRIGHT, D.D., M.A., Ph.D

“‘Mr. Wright has produced a very valuable and exhaustive monograph
upon this, with the exception of Hosea, the most interesting of the minor
prophets. It is because Mr. Wright has furnished us with such an abun-
dance of sound philological criticism in his noble and scholarly hook, that
we heartily recommend it to all earnest students of Holy Scripture.”—
Lcclesiastical Gacette.

‘It is incomparably the best commentary hitherto published by an
English author on Zechariah, It is the fruit of great industry and sound
scholarship, of wide erudition combined with sober judgment. The new
translation and critical and grammatical commentary will be of great
service to critical students of the Hebrew tongue.”—British Quarterly
Review.

“The Bampton Lecturer for 1878 has produced an elaborate and learned
commentary on Zechariah. There is no doubt as to his candour and
erudition.” — Westminster Review.

“*Characterised by sound scholarship, wide erudition, and sober judg-
ment—qualities very necessary in handling the apocalyptic and eschata-
logical visions of Zechariah. It is indispensable to the student of this
obscure and difficult prophet.”— Zhe Expositor.

Loxnpon: HODDER AND STOUGHTON, 27, PATERNOSTER Row,

{
l

THE

BOOK OF KOHELETH,

COMMONLY CALLED ECCLESIASTES,

CONSIDERED IN RELATION TO MODERN CRITICISM, AND
TO THE DOCTRINES OF MODERN PESSIMISM, WITH
A CRITICAL AND GRAMMATICAL COMMENTARY
AND A REVISED TRANSLATION.

The Donnellan eetures for 1880-1,

BY THE REY.

CHARLES HENRY HAMILTON WRIGHT, D.D.,

of Trinity College, Dublin; M.A. of Exeter College, Oxford ;
PAD. of the University of Leipzig ; Incumbent of St. Mary's, Belfast.

London :
HODDER AND STOUGHTON,
27, PATERNOSTER ROW.

MDCCCLXXXIII.

Butler & Tanner,
The Selwood Printing Works,
Frome, and London,
:

En sAemorianr

OF MY BELOVED PARENTS,

EDWARD WRIGHT, LL.D., BARRISTER-AT-LAW,

OF FLORAVILLE, ECLINTON ROAD, DUBLIN,
AND
CHARLOTTE WRIGHT, His WIFE,

WHO ENTERED INTO ‘THE SAINTS’? EVERLASTING REST,”
ON NOVEMBER IST, AND MARCH 30TH, 1881, RESPECTIVELY,
AND WHO BOTH TOOK A DEEP INTEREST
IN THESE

DONNELLAN LECTURES.

Cornell University

Library

The original of this book is in
the Cornell University Library.

There are no known copyright restrictions in
the United States on the use of the text.

http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924059415673

INTRODUCTION.

THE greater part of the following work consists of the
Donnellan Lectures delivered from the pulpit of Trinity
College, Dublin, in 1880-1. In a course of lectures, restricted
to six in number, it was impossible to do more than allude
to several questions which are here more fully discussed.
Most of the second chapter, and considerable portions of
other chapters were not included in the Donnellan Lectures,
and the larger part of that on ‘‘the Song of Koheleth,” was
delivered as a lecture in the Law School of the University
of Cambridge, in April, 1882. The publication of Prof.
Robertson Smith’s Lectures in 1881, on The Old Testament
wn the Jewish Church, and of M. Ernest Renan’s work on
Ecclesiastes early in 1882, necessitated considerable altera-
tions and additions being made to this work. As in my
Bampton Lectures at Oxford, so in the Donnellan Lectures,
I did not consider it advisable to throw my disscrtations
into the shape of ordinary pulpit discourses. Such a form
would have fettered the treatment of the subject, and have
been entirely unsuited to the object I had in view. That
some critics should have blamed this. exercise of freedom
is only what might have been expected, but I have seen
no reason to regret the course taken. Hence the following
chapters exhibit few traces of having been delivered as
University sermons.

The work will, I believe, be perfectly intelligible to the
ordinary English reader, and does not, save in a very few

vii

vill Lntroductton.

places, require for its comprehension any acquaintance with
Hebrew. The grammatical and critical commentary is, of
course, mainly designed for the use of students of Hebrew
and theology. But an intelligent reader of the English Bible
will find, even there, much of which he can avail himself
with almost as much ease as the observations in a purely
English commentary, if he be not deterred from its perusal
by the necessity of having to pass over the critical and
grammatical remarks. The grammatical and critical com-
mentary, which ought to be studied in connexion with the
translation of the Book of Koheleth on pp. 283-304, will
be considered by some too copious, and yet there are
defects in it, which could have been amended, had it not
been necessary to curtail the work as much as possible. I
trust that, even as it is, it may be useful to those engaged in
Biblical researches, and may help in some measure to raise
the tone of Hebrew scholarship in this country.

I have not attempted to conceal the obligations which
I have been under to scholars of almost every school of
thought. I have freely availed myself. of their writings, and
have striven to do full justice to the opinions of those from
whom I have felt constrained to differ. For myself, I firmly
adhere to the doctrine which I have always held, namely, that
the Holy Scriptures contain a Divine revelation, and that God
has of old time spoken unto men “by divers portions and in
divers manners” (Heb. i. 1) through the writers whose books
compose the Old and New Testament (see p. 200), I deeply
regret the want of scholarship too often exhibited in this
country on the part of many, who, however, hold much which
I believe to be true; and I deplore the suspicion with which
all higher Biblical researches are regarded in many quarters
where they ought to be most warmly welcomed and prized.
It is not, I confess, without some feelings of regret that
I have fclt myself constrained, by the evidence adduced

Introduction. ix

by modern critics, to abandon the traditional view of the
Solomonic authorship of the Book of Ecclesiastes. But I
do not consider the canonical character of the book, or its
Divine inspiration, to be at all affected by the abandonment of
a theory at variance with the linguistic features of the book,
as well as with internal evidence, and with the statements of
its epilogue, when rightly understood. In the investigation
of many questions connected with the Sacred Volume the
Christian theologian will act wisely to hold aloof from the
adoption of those popular theories of inspiration which only
fetter and encumber him, when seeking to defend “the truth
once delivered to the saints.” The cautious remarks on this
point of the Rev. Professor Charteris of Edinburgh (a theolo-
gian whose orthodoxy is above suspicion) in his recent popular
volume on The New Testament Scriptures: their Claims, His-
tory, and Authority (London, 1882), are worthy of the attention
of those who falsely imagine that the truth of Scripture depends
upon the acceptance of some special theory of inspiration.

In the brief, but thoughtful and suggestive, commentary of
Mr. Tyler on the Book of Ecclesiastes (Williams & Norgate,
1874), an attempt has been made to prove that the author
of the book was acquainted with the writings of the Greek
philosophers. Notwithstanding some interesting and curious
coincidences of thought, most of which will be found noted
in the course of our work, I cannot but concur in the opinion
arrived at by scholars, differing so widely in opinion as
Delitzsch and Renan, that no real trace of Greek influence
can be pointed out. Zirkel’s former attempt to discover
Grecisms in the Book of Ecclesiastes has been admitted
to have been a failure even by Graetz, though the latter
scholar has endeavoured to show that.a few of the instances
adduced by Zirkel are genuine. Plumptre has, however,
exhibited a disposition to adopt partially at least the view
advocated by Tyler. And, if I am not mistaken, the theory

b

x Lutroductzoir,

of the close connexion of the Book of Ecclesiastes with
Greek thought is likely shortly to be presented in a more
developed form by an able Continental scholar. We shall
wait to see what new arguments will be adduced by that
writer. But the intimation I have received on this point has
made me indisposed prematurely to re-open ἃ discussion,
which for the present may be considered as closed.

In the sixth and seventh chapters I have ventured to
contrast the teachings of the Book of Koheleth, which are
unquestionably in some aspects pessimistic, with the con-
clusions arrived at by the writers of the modern school of
Philosophic Pessimism. Notwithstanding the raciness and
brilliancy which characterize the writings of Schopenhauer
and von Hartmann, I cannot but regard the appearance of
such a school of philosophy as not only one of the most
remarkable, but also one of the saddest phenomena of the
present age. The doctrines of Modern Pessimism are cer-
tain soon to attract in England more notice than they have
yct received. For two of the most important writings of
that school, Schopenhauer’s Welt als Wille und Vorstellung,
and von Hartmann’s Philosophie des Unbewussten, will shortly
appear in an English translation in the Philosophical Library
series of Messrs. Triibner & Co. The vigour of style of
those authors, and the novelty and boldness of their con-
clusions, are certain to awaken as much discussion in this
country as they have called forth in Germany. It is more-
over a sad fact, admitted by advocates of that philosophy,
that the ‘disregard shown by Schopenhauer and von Hart-
mann for what some persons are pleased to speak of merely:
as “the conventionalities of society,’—-and the plain-spoken
manner in which matters are discussed, of which the Apostle
was constrained to remark, “it is a shame even to speak of
those things which are done of them in secret” (Eph. v. 12),—
have attracted a vast number of readers who do not generally

Introduction. xi

trouble themselves with philosophical speculations. In a
work of this kind, it would have been quite out of place to
enter into any formal refutation of that philosophy. My
object has been mainly to point out, from these and other
writings of the philosophers referred to, the conclusions at
which they have arrived, conclusions destructive not only
of faith, but of morality,—to show the source from whence
some of their principles have been derived, and to contrast
them with the teaching of the sacred Jewish philosopher,
whom Schopenhauer and other writers of his school vainly
claim as a precursor.

It may be well, however, to call attention not only to the
important works published in England on this subject by
Mr. Sully and Dr. M. M. Kalisch (of which considerable use
has been made in the following pages), but also to refer to
a work, little known on this side of the Atlantic, by Pro-
fessor Bowen, of Harvard College, Cambridge, United States,
namely, Modern Philosophy, from Descartes to Schopenhauer
and Hartmann (3rd edit., New York, 1877), in which Modern
Pessimism is treated from a philosophical and Christian point
of view. Of more importance, however, is the vigorous and
able essay, recently published by Professor Barlow of Trinity
College, Dublin, entitled Zhe Ultimatum af Pessimism: an
Ethical Study (London: Kegan Paul, Trench & Co., 1882).
Though written from a purely philosophic standpoint, this
work deserves the attention of theologians, and cannot fail to
interest even the general reader. The quiet manner in which
Mr. Barlow’s reductio ad absurdum of some of von Hartmann’s
speculations is conducted is worthy of all commendation.
Mr. Barlow’s book was published too late to permit of its
being made use of in the present work. It must be noted
that it is difficult to define what Pessimism really means, The
term is generally employed throughout the following work in
the sense in which it is used by Schopenhauer, although the

ΧΙ Lilroduction.

further development of Pessimism as represented in the writings
of von Hartmann has been duly noted. 1 observe that Mr.
Barlow has drawn attention to the argument in favour of
Pessimism against Christianity arising from the exaggera-
tions of theologians on questions concérning which little has
been revealed in sacred Scripture. See his remarks on p. 24
of his essay, and compare our note on p. 179. Illogical and
unscientific, when thoroughly examined into, as many of the
conclusions of the Pessimist philosophers may be, I cannot but
believe that their philosophy is but the natural outcome of
atheism. There are, indeed, few halting places on the terrible
road which begins with the denial of the existence of the
Eternal,—too often because men do not like to retain God in
their knowledge (Rom. i. 28), and long to cast away from them
the bands and cords of religion (Ps. ii. 3),—and that ‘reprobate
mind” which generally leads men to do those “ things which
are not fitting” (Rom. i. 28), and finally conducts them to the
precipice over which they not unfrequently hurl themselves
by suicide.

The literature which has been evoked in Germany on this
subject is far too extensive to be mentioned here. Some
of. these works will be found referred to in the following
pages. It may be useful to call attention to the thoughtful
work of Professor Gass of Heidelberg, entitled, Optimisinus
und Pessimismus : der Gang der christlichen Welt- und Lebens-
ansicht (Berlin, 1876).

In the treatment of this important subject,—superficially
though it has been handled by me,—I have to acknowledge
my obligations to my friend Pastor Dr. Hermann Ferdinand
von Criegern, of the S. Thomaskirche, Leipzig, an able scholar
as well as an earnest and eloquent pastor, whose lately
published work on Johann Comenius als Theolog (Leipzig,
1881), will, it is to be hoped, not be his last contribution
to theological literature,

ἢ, 4 ἢ

Introduction. xiii

It was originally my intention to have affixed to the work
a sketch of the extensive literature in connexion with the
Book of Koheleth. But inasmuch as, notwithstanding all my
efforts to compress this volume into smaller compass, it has
grown unduly large, I must reserve the carrying out of this
project for some other opportunity. I have given up the
idea for the present with less reluctance on account of the
valuable historical sketch of the exegesis of the book, both
Jewish and Christian, given by Dr. Ginsburg in his Hestorical
and Critical Commentary, published in 1861. The list of
works on Ecclesiastes compiled by Dr. Ginsburg has been
considerably added to by Delitzsch, in the Einleitung to his
Commentary, which is, in my opinion, the ablest and most
instructive which has yet appeared on this portion of the Old
Testament. Zéckler has made important additions to the
catalogue in his contribution to Lange’s Bibe/werk, and it has
in turn been considerably added to in the American edition of
Zockler’s work by the late Prof. Tayler Lewis, which appears
in the series of Lange’s Commentary, published not only in
America, but also by Messrs. Τὶ & T. Clark, of Edinburgh.

I shall therefore content myself with mentioning the com-
mentaries chiefly used in the execution of this work, observing
only that many others have been occasionally consulted by
me in the library of Trinity College, Dublin. Owing to the
pressure of other public duties, I have not had the opportunity
of prosecuting my researches as widely as I would have de-
sired, It is, however, scarcely necessary to make any apology
for passing over without special mention most of the popular
Commentaries of the Bible in general use in this country.
True exegesis must be built upon a thorough grammati-
cal and critical examination of the original text, a point
generally neglected in those commentaries, The main
object of my work, moreover, was to exhibit the results
arrived at by modern criticism, and it would have been

XIV Introduction.

impossible in any reasonable compass to have noted either
the mistakes or the excellencies of such writers as Bishop
Reynolds, Matthew Henry, and Thomas Scott; or of the
more recent popular expositions of Ecclesiastes, such as
those of Hamilton, Wardlaw, and Buchanan. This work
does not profess to be an exhaustive treatise on the subject.
Some commentators of considerable eminence I have been
obliged to quote at second-hand, and consequently their
works are not included in the subjoined list.

Arnheim, H., Transl. inthe German Version of the Old
Testament, by Zunz, Arnheim, Fiirst and Sachs, 8th edit.
(Berlin, 1864). Bauer, Ch. δὶ, Erlauterter Grundtext vom
Prediger Salomo, etc. (Leipzig, 1732). Bernstein, H. G.,
Questiones nonnull Kohelethane (Vratislav, 1854). Bloch,
J. S. Ursprung und Entstchungszcit des Buches Kohelet
(Bamberg, 1872); Studien zur Geschichte der Samml. der
alt-heb. Lit. (Leipzig, 1875). Bleek, ἔσο, Einleitung in
das Alte Test., 2te Aufl. (Berlin, 1865), and 4te Aufl. by
Wellhausen (Berlin, 1878). Bochl, Ed, De Aramaismis Libri
Koheleth (Erlang., 1860). Bunsen, C. C. J, Vollstandiges
Bibelwerk (Leipzig, 1858-69). Bridges, Rev. Charles, MA,
Exposition of the Book of Ecclesiastes (London, 1860).
Bottcher, Fried. Proben alttest. Schrifterklarung (Leipzig,
1833); Exeg.-kritische Achrenlese zum alten Test. (Leipzig,
1849) ; Neue exeg.-kritische Aehrenlese zum A.T. (Leipzig,
1863, 1864); De Inferis rebusque post mortem futuris
(Dresden, 1846). Critic? Sacri (Frankf, 1695). Bullock, Rez.
W. 7, M7.A., Comm, and Critical Notes on Ecclesiastes, in
the Speaker's Commentary (London, 1878). Cox, Samuel,
D.D., The Quest of the Chief Good ; Expository Lectures on
the Book of Ecclesiastes with a New Translation: A Com-
mentary for Laymen (London, n.d., but published in 1867).
Dathe, J. A., Job, Prov., Eccl. and Cant, Latine versi notisque
illust. (Halle, 1789). Dale, Rev. T. P., Awl, A Commen-

Introduction. XV

tary on Ecclesiastes (Lond. and Camb., 1873). Davidson,
Dr. S., Introduction to the Old Test. (Lond., 1862, 1863).
Derenbourg, 7. Notes détachées sur I’Ecclésiaste, 1880, sec
note 1, p. 190. Delitesch, Prof. Dr: Frans, see General
Index. Elster, Ernst, Commentar tiber:den Prediger Salomo
(Gottingen, 1855). wou Essen, Ludwig, Der Prediger
Salomos (Schaffhausen, 1856). LZwald, Prof. H., see General
Index. Iiirst, Prof. J, Der Kanon des alt. Test, nach den
Ueberlieferungen in Talmud u. Midrasch (Leipzig, 1868),
see General Index. Given, Prof. Dr, Truth of Scripture
in connection with Revelation, etc. (Edinb., 1881). Gins-
burg, Dr. C. D., Coheleth, commonly called the Book of
Ecclesiastes, with comm., hist. and crit. (London, 1861).
Graetz, Dr. H., Kohélet oder der Salomonische Prediger
iibersetzt und kritisch erlautert (Leipzig, 1871); Monats-
schrift fiir Gesch. τ. Wissenchaft des Judenthums. Gerger,
Dr, Abraham, Urschrift u. Uebersetzungen der Bibel (Breslau,
1857); Jiidische Zeitschrift (Breslau, 1862-1875). Hengsten-
berg, Dr. E. W, Comm. on Ecclesiastes, Engl. Transl. by
Ὦ. W. Simon (Edinb. 1860). Havernick, H. A. C, Einlei-
tung in das alt. Test, 2te Aufl. by Keil (Frankf, 1854).
Hahn, Dr. Heinr. Aug. Commentar iiber das Predigerbuch
Salomos (Leipzig, 1860). Hezligstedt, Aug, Comm. gramm.,
hist, crit. in Eccles. (1848), in Maurer’s Comm. in Vet. Test.
Fterafeld, Dr. 7,., Coheleth iibersetzt u. erlautert (Braunschweig,
1838). Htsig, Dr. Ferd, Der Prediger Salomos erklart; in
the Kurzgef. exeget. Handb. z. A. T. (Leipzig, 1847). Aoede-
mann, Prof. Dr, Bibelstudien. This work I have only quoted
second-hand. I have, however, used his Exeget. Adversarien
in the Sachsesches Kirchen- τι. Schulblatt for 1882. Janichs, Dr.
G., Animadversiones Critica in vers. Syriacam Peschitt. Libb.
Koheleth et Ruth (Vratisl., 1871). Johnston, Rev, David, A
Treatise on the Authorship of Ecclesiastes (Macmillan & Co.,
1880), issued anonymously, see Ὁ. 114. Kaiser, Dr. G.P. CK.

xvi Introduction.

Koheleth, das Collectivum der Davidischen Konige in Jeru-
salem (Erlangen, 1823). Kalisch, Dr. M. M., Path and
Goal: A Discussion on the Elements of Civilisation and the
Conditions of Happiness [with a translation of the Book of
Ecclesiastes] (London, 1880). Avcinert, Dr. P., Der Prediger
Salomo, Uebersetzung, sprachliche Bemerkungen u. Erorter-
ungen zum Verstandniss (Berlin, 1864). Knobel, August,
Commentar iiber das Buch Koheleth (Leipzig, 1836).
Leathes, Prof. Stanley, see n. on p. 114. Leas, Prof.
Tayler (see under Zockler). Luther, Martin, German Ver-
sion of the Bible; Exeg. Opera Latina cura Irmischer
et Schmidt, vol. xxi. (Erlang., 1858), Ecclesiastes cum an-
notat. Jfeyer, J. H., Comm. Exegetica in Koh. xi. 1-6
(Heilbronn, 1803). Perowne, J. J. S., Dean of Peterborough,
Articles in “The Expositor” for 1879. Plumptre, L. FH,
Dean of Wells, Ecclesiastes, or the Preacher, with Notes
and Introduction (Cambridge, 1881), see p. 133. Polt,
Matthei, Synopsis Criticorum (London, 1699-1674). Preston,
Theodore, Ecclesiastes, Hebrew Text and a Latin Version,
with original Notes philol. and exeget..and a Transl. of the
Comm. of Mendelssohn (Iondon, 1845). Rexan, Ernest,
L’Ecclésiaste traduit de l’Hébreu avec une Etude sur l’age
et le caractére du livre (Paris, 1882). Rosenmiiller, E. F.C,
Scholia in Vet. Test. Koheleth and Cant. (Lipsiz, 1830).
Schafer, Dr. Bernhard, Neue Untersuchungen iiber das Buch
Koheleth (Freiburg in Breisgau, 1870): Stdhelin, J. 7., Spe-
ciclle Einleitung in dic kanon, Biicher des A.T. (Elberfeld,
1862). Strack, Prof. H. L., Einleitung in das A.T., in the
Handbuch der theolog. Wissenschaften (Ndrdlingen, 1882).
See General Index. Taylor, Dr. C., The Dirge of Coheleth in
Eccl, xii., discussed and literally interpreted (London, 1874).
See General Index. Tyler, Thomas, M.A, Some New Evidence
as to the Date of Ecclesiastes (London, 1872) ; Ecclesiastes :
A Contribution to its Interpretation, with Introd., Exeget.

Introduction. XVvil

Analysis and Transl., with Notes (Lond. 1874). Umbreit,
F. W.C, Koheleth’s des weisen Konigs Scclenkampf, oder
philos. Betrachtungen iiber das héchste Gut (Gotha, 1818) ;
Coheleth Scepticus de summo bono : Comment. philos.-critica
(Gottinge, 1820). Vazihinger, 7. G, Der Prediger und das
Hohelied (Stuttgart, 1848). Wordsworth, Bishop, Woly Bible
in the Auth. Version with Notes and Introd.: Proverbs,
Ecclesiastes, and Song of Solomon (Lond. 1872). MVard-
law, Ralph, D.D., Lectures on the Book of Ecclesiastes
(Edin., 1821). Winser, 7. &, Comm. de Koh. xi. 9—xii. 7.
Three parts (Leipzig, 1818, 1819). Young, Rev. Loyal, D.D.,
A Commentary on the Book of Ecclesiastes (Philadelphia,
1865). Zzrkel, G., Untersuchungen tiber den Prediger nebst
kritischen und philolog. Bemerkungen (Wiirzburg, 1792).
Zoickler, Prof. Otto, Das Hohelied u. der Prediger, theolo-
gisch-homiletisch bearbeitet in Lange’s. Bibelwerk (Bielefeld
and Leipzig, 1868); American edition, with annotations,
dissertations, etc, by Prof. Tayler Lewis, LL.D., of Schenec-
tady, N.Y. (Edin., 1872).

The General Index will show the books which have been
consulted on questions affecting the text, and on other sub-
jects. It is only here necessary to observe that, alongside of
Field’s splendid edition of Origen’s Hexapla (Oxon. 1875),
which has been used for the Greek versions, I have used
Nestle’s (E.) Vet. Test. Grac. Codd. Vat. et Sin. cum textu
reccpto collati, Lee’s edition of the Syriac Peschitto, and for
the Targum, Walton’s Polyg/ott, along with de Lagarde’s
edition of the same (Hagiographa Chaldaice, Lipsizx, 1873).

On questions of Hebrew Grammar I have uniformly
referred to the last and most valuable edition of Gesenius's
Heb. Grammatik, the 23rd “vielfach verbesserte τ. vermehrte
Auflage,” edited by Kautzsch (Leipzig, 1881), though in al-
most all cases the references can be verified in the earlier
editions. It has been necessary occasionally to refer to

XVIll Lntroductton.

Gesenius'’s Lehrgebiude der Heb. Sprache (1817). Side by
side with Kautzsch’s edition of Gesenius (noted as Ges.-
Kautssch), references have been given to Kalisch’s Hebrew
Gramitar (London, 1862, 1863),—the sections numbered
with Arabic numerals refer to the first vol., those in
Roman numerals to the second,—and also to Ewald's
alusfiihrl. Lehrbuch, 8th edit. (Gottingen, 1870). English
students have now the inestimable advantage of possessing
an excellent translation of the more important part of Ewald’s
great work in the edition of Ewald’s Syntax of the Hebrew
Language of the Old Test. translated from the 8th German
edition, by James Kennedy, B.D. (Edinb, T. & Τὶ Clark,
1879), to which reference can be made without difficulty.
I have also used Olshausen’s Lehrbuch der Heb. Sprache
(Braunschweig, 1861), Philippi’s sagacious work on the lesen
und Ursprung des Stat. Constructus in [Hebraischen (Weimar,
1871), and more especially Driver's (5. R., now Regius Pro-
fessor of Hebrew at Oxford) most instructive 7veatise on the
Use of the Tenses in Hebrew, 2nd edit, 1881. I would gladly
have made much more frequent reference to these works had
space permitted, and if grammatical commentaries were more
popular in England. But it is to be feared that such notes
as. are here appended, while they increase the bulk of the
volume, may considerably lessen its sale. Bottcher’s Awsfiihri.
Lehrbuch, edited by Miihlau (Leipzig, 1866, 1868), has neces-
sarily often been referred to, as well as the two most recent
works on Hebrew grammar, namely, Stade’s (Professor
Bernhard, of the University of Giessen) Lehrbuch der Heb,
Grammatik, Erster Theil (Leipzig, 1879), and Prof. Dr.
Friedrich E. Kénig’s Héstor?schkritisches Lehrycbiude der
Heb. Sprache, Vrste Halfte (Leipzig, 1881), both original
works well worthy of carcful study.

For the Babylonian Talmud I have generally used the
very convenient edition of the same in 25 quarto vols. recently

Lntroduction. ' xix

completed in Warsaw (Sussman u. Wolf Jabez), the pagi-
nation of which coincides with the earlier editions. For the
Jerusalem Talmud I have employed the folio edition issued
in. Krotoschin in 1865. The text of the Midrash Rabboth
has been cited from the Warsaw edition printed by Gold-
man in 1867. I need scarcely say that I have availed
myself of the valuable work of Dr. Aug. Wiinsche, £2d-
liotheca Rabbinica: Eine Sammlung alter Midraschim sum
ersten Alale in Deutsche tibertragen, a work which, though
defective in some particulars, is not to be judged as a whole
by the portion on the Midrash Koheleth, which is its
weakest part, and which no doubt will be greatly improved
when a second edition is called for.

I have to apologise for the want of uniformity in the
transliteration of Hebrew words and proper names in my
work. It has partly arisen from the fact that I had not
the advantage of being able to revise the work as a whole
before sending it to press. The duties of my clerical profes-
sion,—largely increased by the present state of things in
Ireland,—which have entailed upon me weekly often five
or six sermons or addresses, besides the work of pastoral
visitation in a very large and populous town district, the
building of large schools connected with my parish, opened
only a month ago; all these, and many other duties also,
involving incessant interruptions, have rendered it exceedingly
difficult to execute a work of this kind, requiring such con-
stant care. Possibly at some future time I may have an
opportunity of devoting my main energies to Old Testament
studies. Meanwhile, under circumstances of considerable
difficulty, I have endeavoured in this, as in my previous
commentaries, to help forward the important work of Old
Testament criticism which has been for a long time sadly
neglected in our country.

With regard to the translation given on pp. 280-304 of

BON Introduction,

this work, it may be well here to observe that a few notes
have been added in thin brackets. It has been my en-
deavour there to give the results of modern criticism. In
reply to the charge, often recklessly preferred, of “ needlessly
departing” from our Authorized Version, I would refer to
p. ix. of the preface of my Bampton Lectures. In every
attempt to translate faithfully the work of an ancient
author the ruggedness of the original must occasionally
reflect itself in the translation. The headings assigned to
the various sections of the Book of Koheleth will, it is
hoped, be useful ; while a general synopsis of the subjects
touched on by the Sacred Writer can be obtained from the
“contents” on pp. xxii, xxiii, The explanation of several
technical words employed in this work may be obtained by
the help of the Index.

I have in conclusion to acknowledge my warmest thanks
to my dear friend, Professor Dr. Franz Delitzsch of the
University of Leipzig, for most kindly revising the proof-
sheets of this work while passing through the press. Several
valuable remarks of his have been embodied in the notes. I
have also to acknowledge with grateful thanks the readiness
with which Professor Dr. H. L. Strack of the University of
Berlin undertook the same kind service, and the important
help I have in many places received from him. The respon-
sibility of the work is, however, solely and entirely my own,
Professor Dr. William Wright, of Cambridge, has kindly:
given me the benefit of his opinion on many points, though
unable to undertake as a whole the revision of the proof-
shects. Mr. R. L. Bensly of Caius and Gonville College,
Cambridge, has afforded me much assistance in the correction
of the proofs, as has also Rev. T. J. Corr, M.A., Ex-S.T.C.D.,
Curate of the Magdalen Church, Belfast.

ANTRIM ROAD, BELFAST,
Feb. 20th, 1883.

CONT EN ‘Fs,

a fs

CHAPTER I.
PAGE

THE ADMISSION OF THE BOOK OF KOHELETH INTO THR CANON
OF THE JEWISH CHURCH . x

ῳ

; CHAPTER, II;

THE BOOK OF KOHELETH AND THE BOOK OF JESUS THE SON
OF SIRACH . ᾿ ‘ Γ 2 é ‘ ; peed

CHAPTER III.
THE Book OF WISDOM AND THE BOOK OF KOHELETH

wa
wa

CHAPTER IV.

THE AUTHORSHIP OF THE BOOK OF KOHELETH. . . » 79
CHAPTER V.

THE AUTHORSHIP OF THE BOOK OF KOHELETH (continued) . 109
CHAPTER VI.

THE PESSIMISM OF THE BOOK OF KOHELETH AND THAT OF
SCHOPENHAUER AND VON HARTMANN . ᾿ . 141
Supplementary Note‘on Buddhism . « 182

CHAPTER VII.

THE PESSIMISM OF THE BOOK OF KOHELETH, ESPECIALLY IN
RELATION TO A FUTURE STATE AND THE CHARACTER
OF WOMEN, CONTRASTED WITH MODERN PESSIMISM 187

CHAPTER VIII.

THE CLOSING SECTION OF THE BOOK OF KOHELETH—THE
Days or LIFE AND THE Days OF DEATH . ; « “BIZ.

xxi

ΧΕΙ Contents.
PAGE
THe Book or KoHELETH: A NEW TRANSLATION, ARRANGED
IN SECTIONS, WITH A CRITICAL AND GRAMMATICAL COM-
MENTARY :—
Preliminary Note on the title Koheleth 79
The Jewish Division of the Book 282
Tur New TRANSLATION . + 283-304
§ 1. The absolute vanity of εὐ θοῦ earthly—Earthly
phenomena like a circle with no real progress 283
§ 2. Koheleth’s first discovery—The vanity of wisdom 284
§ 3. Koheleth’s second discovery—The vanity of pleasure
and riches ‘ . : s 284
§ 4. Koheleth’s third discovery—
᾿ (a) The vanity of wisdom, since the end of the
wise man and the fool is alike oS
(4) Riches, though grated by much toil, are
vanity . r ᾿ - 286
(c) The conditions εὐξβόξηενν τσ Ἐβδοεῆη enjoy-
ment . 3 2 ὃ ; ᾿ ᾿ 287
§ 5. The short-sightedness and powerlessness of men
before God, the Disposer and Arranger of all things 2387
§ 6. The unrighteous actions of men when left to them-
selves—Men compared to the beasts that perish 288
§ 7. The misery common to man—
(a) The oppression of man by his fellow. 289
(6) The rivalry and useless toil of man 289
§ 8 The disadvantages of a man being alone by himself,
and the benefit of companionship 290
§ 9. The vanity of popular enthusiasm for a new monarch 290
§ το. Vanity in religion—Divine worship, and vows . 291
§ 11. The vanity of riches (a) in a state under despotic
rule ; (6) riches are little advantage in themselves,
and (c) are gathered for others 291
§ 12. The ultimatum—The vanity of possessing riches
without enjoying them . 203
§ 13. The insatiability of desire. 293
§ 14. Human powerlessness and short-sightedness with
respect to destiny . Ἄ 293
§ 15. Proverbs concerning things to be preferred by man. 294.

§ 16.

§ 19.

wn ton
Δ (ὦ
wo on

mam
τ
wm

ὁ 27:

§ 28, The Epilogue
GRAMMATICAL AND CRITICAL COMMENTARY : . 305-%
APPENDIX :—

Contents. XXII

Patience and wisdom the hest preservatives in the
time of oppression and adversity .

. The importance of keeping “the middle mean,” and

the practical advantages of wisdom

. The snare by which men are generally caught— The
wicked woman ὃ Ἶ Ὁ

The benefit of wisdom in days of oppression—The
wise man will be obedient and patient, knowing
that there is a God who judgeth the earth. r

. Man knows not the work of God, but is in all things

conditioned by a higher power than his own, which

permits the same things to happen to all alike

21. The fate that awaits all, the state of the dead—Men

ought therefore to enjoy life, while working for
their daily bread—The uncertainties of life, and
the certainty of death in an unexpected time
. The poor wise man, and the benefits of wisdom
. The usefulness of wisdom and the danger of folly,
shown by various proverbs ν :
. The fool noted for his useless talk and aimless toil
. The misery of a land cursed with a foolish king, and
the necessity of prudence in the subjects of such
a monarch ‘ ἢ i ὃ i ᾿
. The wisdom of beneficence—The future belongs to
God, but man ought to labour and ἰὼ life while
hecan . . .
The Song of Koheleth—The Days of Life ee the
Days of Death ‘ . -

Excursus 1. The statements of the Talmud with respect to

§ 1.
§2

§ 3.
ὃ 4.
§ 5.

the Old Testament Canon in general, and specially in
reference to the Hagiographa

The Tradition as to the Canon

. The Threefold Division of the Jewish sebiptidiss

The Aboth of R. Nathan . ᾿ ᾿ . ™
The Book of Ben Sira

The Book of Koheleth

PAGE

294

301

XXIV Contents.

Excursus 11, On the Talmudic statement that “the Holy
Scriptures defile the hands”
Ἔχεμος 111. “The Men of the Great Siataeoawe” en
Excursus WV. § τ. Grammatical peculiarities of the Book of
Koheleth
§ 2. Glossary of Hibbeew i. phrases, ‘and tiene
peeiilter to the Book of Koheleth

INDEX OF TEXTS ILLUSTRATED

GENERAL INDEX

501

506

Page.
SI.
58.
83.
94.

131.

134.

137.

318,

345.

348.
350.
367.
368.
388.
426.

ERRATA.

Line 7 from bottom, add a comma before ‘‘ cod. B.”
Line 7 of note read 4.
Line 10 from bottom read ‘‘ synonym for wisdom.”
Last line read ‘ fact !” for ‘fact 1.”
Line 18 add a comma after ‘‘ godliness.”
Line 9 delete comma after ‘‘ soon.”
Line 15 from bottom read “taught” for “ thought.”
Line 16 read ‘‘Isa.” for ‘ Jer.”

ie ate Ber
Line 13 from bottom read δ ὁ] ye ΕΊΘΙ and ΒΤ
Line 7 from top remove comma before ‘‘ instances.”
Line 9 from bottom read ‘‘ whose head he is.””
Line 9. 5 read ‘‘12” in place of “13.”
Line 8 »ὴ read “ΝΠ. for ‘‘ Neh.”
Line 5 add ‘* 13” at beginning of line.
Line 14 read ΠΡῚΝ
Line 5 read ‘‘ Sirach (xii. 13).”

ADDENDA.

Notice additional remarks on Sirach xii. 13, on p. 426.

Line 1 of notes, add: See a paper by Prof. J. E. B, Mayor, upon the
history of the phrase ‘‘the four cardinal virtues,” in the Transactions
of the Cambridge Philological Society, vol. i. p. 96.

On chap. iii. 11, notice additional remark on p. 437.

CHAPTER. L

THE ADMISSION OF THE BOOK OF KOHMELETH INTO
THE CANON OF THE JEWISH CHURCH.

CHAPTER I.

The tradition of the Talmud, 3—Hezekiah and his religious reforms, 3—His
college of scribes, 4—Succeeded by the men of the Great Synagogue, 5—Their
work with respect to the Canon, 5—Views of Kuenen and Robertson Smith as
to the legendary character of that tradition, 6—Summary of their leading argu-
ments, 7—Arguments in favour of its historical truth, 8—The testimonies of
the Talmud, 9—The early difficulties felt with regard to the Book of Ecclesi-
astes, 12—These difficulties, according to tradition, solved by the men of the
Great Synagogue, 11, 13—The later contests with respect to Ecclesiastes
between the schools of Hillel and Shammai, 14—The book admitted into the
Canon previous to that controversy, 15—Explanation of the point in dispute,
16—‘‘ The Holy Scriptures defile the hands,” 16—The canonicity of the Book
of Ecclesiastes, 18—The Herodian theory of Professor Graetz, 19—The Book
of Ecclesiastes quoted as canonical in the interview between Herod the Great
and Ben Biita, 19—And in the discussion respecting the Messianic age between
Gamaliel and his disciple, 22 ff.—Probabilities in favour of that disciple having
been St. Paul, 22, 24, note—The Rook of Ecclesiastes prior to the Herodian
era, 24—The Antilegomena of the Old and New Testament Canons, 26.

THE BOOK OF KOHELETH,

IN RELATION TO MODERN CRITICISM AND
MODERN PESSIMISM.

CHAPTER I.

THE ADMISSION OF THE BOOK OF KOHELETH INTO THE
CANON OF THE JEWISH CHURCH.

“MOSES received the law from Sinai, and delivered it to
Joshua, and Joshua to the elders, and the elders to the
prophets, and the prophets to the men of the Great Syna-
gogue.” Such are the opening words of the remarkable
treatise of the Talmud, entitled Massecheth Aboth, “the
Sayings of the Fathers,” often termed Pirke Aboth, or “the
Chapters of the Fathers.” The Prophets and the men of
the Great Synagogue were, according to the Talmudic tradi-
tion, important links in the line of succession, not only of the
Law, but also of the other Sacred Writings of the Jews.

In the latter days of the Jewish monarchy, Hezekiah was
remarkable for the extent and boldness of his religious
reforms. He restored the true religion of Jahaveh, the pre-
cepts and ritual of which had been disregarded in the dark
days of Ahaz, and suppressed the open practice of idolatry
throughout the land. But while he brake down the carved
and molten images erected in every place, and according to

4 The Men of King Hezekiah.

the Jewish tradition! destroyed the books of sorcery and
incantations then current among the people, he also mani-
fested the utmost concern in all matters connected with the
preservation of the Sacred Writings of the nation. For this
purpose, as may be inferred from Proverbs xxv. 1, he organ-
ized a special company of learned men interested in the
study of that ancient literature. They busied themselves in
collecting from all sides the Sacred Writings then extant,
and in multiplying copies of those books. Under their
superintendence a considerable number of the proverbs of
Solomon, not previously included in the Book of Proverbs,
were rescued from oblivion and added to the original collec-
tion. On account of such labours Hezekiah has been justly
styled by a great modern critic and expositor, “the Pisis-
tratus of Israelitish Literature.” ἢ

‘This important company, or College of Scribes, entitled in
the Proverbs, “the men of Hezekiah king of Judah” (inas-
much as the society was originally founded by that monarch),
continued to exist as a Jewish institution for several centuries.
It: may have lasted, under some form or other, down to and
during the period of the exile. According to the Talmud,

1 According to the traditions mentioned in Berach. 104, and Pesach. 56a,
Hezekiah ‘‘ hid a Book of Remedies” (NIS81B7 75D 123), or, according to the
Jer. Sanhedr. I. 18, ‘*a Table of Remedies” (MINI by mba), in order
that the people might seek to God in sickness for recovery, and not look to the
physicians (2 Chron. xvi. 12). The old remedies for disease probably consisted
in great part of incantations. Vid. Gideon Brecher, Das Transcendentales,
Magie u. magische Heilarten im Talmud, Wien, 1850; D. Joel, Der Aberglaube
und. die Stellung des Fudenthums zu demselben, 1 Heft, Breslau, 1881. Dukes, in
the introduction to his add. Blumenlese, however, notes that the remarks of Ben
Sira in honour of physicians (in Sirach xxxviii. 1 ff) were intended to counteract
the prejudice against the use of medicines, probably based on a mistaken view
of Exodus xv. 26. Ben Sira, however, also urges on the sick at the same time
the duty of prayer (Sirach xxxviii. 9, 10). The recommendation of St. James
(v. 14, 15), which urges prayer combined with the use of the best known remedies
(such as the anointing with oil, Luke xi. 34) seems directly or indirectly to have
been based on the maxim of Beu Sira; see chap. ii. p. 49.

® See Delitzsch’s Comm. tiber das Salomonische Spruchbuch, in loco.

Their Work and Period of they Activity. §

“ Hezekiah and his college wrote Isaiah, Proverbs, Song of
Songs and Koheleth” (Baba Bathra, 15@).1 This statement
is not to be regarded as a stupid anachronism. The fact that
Hezekiah died previous to Isaiah was not forgotten, and the
word “wrote” was probably used in the sense of “copied out
and edited.” For the College of Hezekiah continued in exist-
ence for centuries after the death of that monarch. “The
men of Hezekiah” appear to have employed themselves in
editing correct copies of the Sacred Writings, and while doing
so to have occasionally, as in the case of the Book of Pro-
verbs, added new matter to the old.? It is highly probable
that this body decided from time to time what books were
to be regarded as of Divine authority. Fiirst estimates the
period of its activity as extending from B.C. 724, when Heze-
kiah ascended the throne of Judah, to B.c. 444, when Nehc-
miah became governor of Judea. “Τῆς men of Hezekiah”
no doubt included in their number some of the “former
prophets” (Zech. i. 4) and others known afterwards as “the
latter prophets.” Hence that company may, perhaps, be
referred to in the passage quoted from the Treatise Aboth,
under the general term of “the Prophets.”

According to the tradition referred to, “the men of the
Great Synagogue” in later days discharged the functions
performed in earlier times by “the men of Hezekiah.” The
establishment of the Great Synagogue is generally ascribed
to Ezra. The accounts given of its origin and acts cannot,
indeed, in all points be relied on as historically correct. Part
of the work said to have been accomplished by the mem-
bers of this body is thus described by Rashi: “The men

1 See Excursus on the Talmud and the Old Testament Canon.

2 Ewald considers it probable that nine Psalms contained in the first book of
the Psalms (Ps. i-xli.), namely, Psalms vi., xiii., xv., xx., xxi., xxili., xxvil., xxx.,
xli., may have been out of a collection arranged by Hezekiah. See Ewald’s Gesch.,
vol. iii, p. 654 [vol. iv. p. 198 of the English translation by J. Estlin Carpenter],
etc. ; Fiirst’s δ λό], Lit., vol. ii. p. 369.

6 Tre Alen of the Great Synagogue.

of the Great Synagogue, namely, Haggai, Zechariah and
Malachi, seeing that Ezekiel and Daniel had died during the
Babylonian Exile, and that the books of the twelve minor
Prophets, as also the history of Esther, were of small size,
wrote out these anew from the books of the exile and formed
the twelve into one book, in order that the single books
might not be lost on account of their small size, and thus
Esther and the four other books, Ruth, Koheleth, Song of
Songs, and Lamentations, were united together. But they did
so because they knew that after them the prophetic spirit would
depart from Israel.” See his Comm. on Baba Bathra, 15 a.

Kuenen has, indeed, ably maisitained that the whole story
of “the men of the Great Synagogue,” and of their work in
reference to the Canon of the Old Testament, is a legend
utterly devoid of any real historical truth. Professor Robert-
son Smith has adopted the same view, and regards Kuenen’s
arguments as conclusive. It has, in his opinion, “been
proved in the clearest manner that the origin of the legend
of the Great Synagogue is derived from the account given
in Nehemiah viii. ix. of the great convocation which met at
Jerusalem and subscribed the covenant to observe the Law.
It was, therefore, a meeting and not a permanent authority.
It met once for all, and everything that is told about it,
except what we read in Nehemiah, is pure fable of the later
Jews.” ?

Such a conclusion is, however, not justified by the facts
of the case. It is true indeed that much of that which
tradition asserts to have been performed by “the men of the
Great Synagogue” proves, when carefully examined into, to
be’ merely a repetition with legendary accompaniments of

1 A. Kuenen, Over de Mannen der Groote Synagoge.—Verslagen en Mededeelingen
der Koninklijke Akademie van Wetenschappen. Afdeeling Letterkunde. Tweede
Keeks. Zesde Deel. Tweede Stuk. 1876,

? See his work on Zhe Old Testament in the Jewish Church, pp. 156-7, and his
note, pp. 408-9.

Arguments against the Tradition. 7

facts recorded in the Books of Ezra and Nehemiah, which
occurred in connexion with the great assembly of the Jews
at Jerusalem after the Return from Babylon. But this is just
what might have been expected. Ezra, Nehemiah and the
prophets of that day are constantly spoken of as belonging to
“the men of the Great Synagogue.” Hence it is natural that
what was done by Ezra and his fellows, or performed in con-
sequence of their directions, should be spoken of in later times
as performed by “the men of the Great Synagogue.” It does
not, therefore, surprise us to find that even the acts and
sayings of the chief men of the families who returned from
Babylon should be referred to as acts and decrees of “the
men of the Great Synagogue.” Many things ascribed to the
latter body turn out on investigation to have actually occur-
red in the great assembly of the Jewish people recorded in
the Book of Nehemiah. But this fact in itself is not sufficient
to. justify the assertion that all that is said respecting the
existence of such a governing body in the Jewish Church of
that age ought to be set aside as entirely legendary. The
silence of the Apocryphal books, as well as of Josephus and
Philo, with respect to “the men of the Great Synagogue,” is
neither strange nor remarkable. It is well known that the Jew-
ish annals from the death of Nehemiah (circa B.c. 415) down
to B.C. 175 are almost a complete blank. The writers of the
Apocryphal books had no occasion at all to refer to the acts
of “the men of the Great Synagogue,” and Josephus appears
to have been almost totally devoid of information with respect
to the Jewish annals during the period referred to. That
writer has, indeed, been clever enough to prevent this gap
in his history from being perceived by ordinary readers.
Although he may have been fully aware of the existence of
such a body as “the men of the Great Synagogue,” and may
have often heard of the difficulties which that body felt with
respect to certain books of the Canon, such facts were scarcely

8 The Earliest References to their Work.

those which Josephus would have cared to record in his
Antiquities when he had no further incidents to adduce which
bore on the history of the period in question. In writing
against Apion, Josephus had every reason to pass over such
facts in silence. His silence, too, is not so inexcusable; as
the facts known to us, while not really opposed to the
conclusions at which he arrived, would readily have placed
convenient weapons in the hands of an unscrupulous anta-
gonist.

It must not be forgotten that the earliest references to
the existence of such a body, namely, those in the Treatise
Aboth, are entirely free from those legendary accretions of
later days on which Krochmal and Kuenen rely in support
of their hypothesis. The last man of distinction who, accord-
ing to tradition, was a member of that body previous to its
final dissolution, lived at least two centuries prior to the
Christian era.

Many of the acts of “the men of the Great Synagogue”
referred to in the Talmuds cannot, indeed, in the exact form
in which they are there related, be regarded as historically
true. The very numbers mentioned in connexion with that
body (85 at one time and 120 at another) are curious trans-
formations of the narrative of Nehemiah. The formule of
prayer said to have been drawn up by them, and the epithets
which they are said to have directed to be made use of in
addressing the Almighty, are but echoes of the self-same
narrative ; while other works ascribed to them, such as the
well-known “corrections of the scribes” in certain passages
of the Sacred Writings (the DADD PPM), are generally ac-
knowledged to have been the work of the “scribes” of a
much later era.

But, though we are not prepared to endorse as indubitable

1See my Bampton Lectures on Zechariah and his Prophecies, critical note on
Zech, 11. 12, p. 541.

The Members of that Body. 9

facts of history many of the statements made in reference to
the Old Testament canon and its authoritative settlement in
the days of Ezra, it is going too far in historical scepticism
to call in question the existence of “the men of the Great
Synagogue” at, or shortly after, the Restoration. There was
a grave necessity for the creation of some such body then
in connexion with the Jewish Church, a body whose special
business it should be to collect together and preserve the
Sacred Writings of the nation, to decide in cases of doubt
what books were to be regarded as authoritative in matters
of faith and ritual as having been composed in “the spirit
of prophecy,” and to investigate any difficulties which might
be raised concerning their interpretation.

Although, according to the common tradition, Ezra, Ne-
hemiah, and the prophets of that period, namely, Haggai and
Zechariah, along with Malachi (who, however, prophesied
somewhat later), belonged themselves to “the men of the
Great Synagogue,” “the men of the Great Synagogue” are
in other places spoken of as a body who were the successors
of the prophets Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi. The idea
of Elias Levita that the whole period of “the men of the
Great Synagogue” did not last more than forty years is
utterly groundless. ἢ

The name of Simon the Just is mentioned in the Treatise
Aboth as one of the last of “the men of the Great Syna-
gogue.”2 This statement is not to be interpreted as if it
signified that Simon was one of the last survivors of the band

1 See Ginsburg’s edition of Levita’s Massoreth ha-Massoreth, p. 108, and
Ginsburg’s note there.

2 “ Simon the Righteous (ur the Just), was of the remnants of the Great Syna-
gogue. He used to say, on three things the world stands: on the Law (the
Thorah), and on the worship [or ‘on prayer’], and on the bestowal of kind-
nesses.” See Taylor’s (Rev. Dr., Master of St. John’s College, Camb.) notes in
his excellent edition of the Sayings of the Fewish Fathers, Ὁ. 26, and compare
Romans ix. 4. See Excursus No. 3—‘‘On the Men of the Great Synagogue,’
at the end of this volume.

10 The Character of their Work.

of men who co-operated with Fzra in the restoration of the
Jewish Church, after the return from Babylon. Its meaning
is rather that Simon was one of the last members of that
Synagogue, which appears to have been finally dissolved
prior to the era of the Maccabees, or about that time, in some
way or other not mentioned in extant annals or traditions.
Simon is in other parts of the Talmud identified with Jaddua
the high priest, who, according to Josephus, went forth with
his fellow-priests in solemn proccssion to meet Alexander
the Great, when that conqueror, after having taken Tyre,
marched against Jerusalem.!_ He is with greater probability
regarded as high priest during the reign of Ptolemy Lagus
from B.C. 298 to 287. Herzfeld and Holtzmann have main-
tained that “Simon the Just” is rather to be identified with
Simon II, who was high priest from B.C. 226 to B.c. 198 or
196.2, No very condlusive arguments can be adduced on
cither side of this question.

The Treatise Aboth thus pithily describes in its opening
verse the work of “the men of the Great. Synagogue.” “ They
said three things: be deliberate in judgment ; and raise up
many disciples; and make a fence to the Thorah” (the Law of
Moses). In other words, the business of the men of the Great
Synagogue was to define, to teach, and to develop the Law.
The last clause has been well explained by Taylor as fol-
lows: They were “to surround the Law with a margin of
casuistry, to evolve the principles which underlay its words,
to develop and apply its decrees, accommodating them to
the varied requirements of the time.” ὃ

1See my Bampton Lectures, pp. 224 ff

2 See Taylor's Sayings of the Fewish Fathers, note.on Simon the Just on p. 26.
See also Chap, II. p, 36.

3 Taylor’s Sayings of the Fewish Fathers, p. 125. It is, however, not certain
that this is really the true sense of the saying in Aboth i. 1. Under the term
‘the Law,” not merely the Books of Moses but also the other books of the Holy

Scriptures were sometimes comprehended, and Bloch, in his Stave aur Geschichte
α΄. Sammlung der altheb. Literatur, p. §6, maintains that the sense of making a

Their Deliberateness in Fudgment. 11

An illustration of the sense and application of the first of
these “three words,” namely, “ be deliberate in judgment,” is
afforded in the Aboth of Rabbi Nathan. “The men of Heze-
kiah” are there adduced as an example of persons who were
deliberate in judgment, in that they, after careful investiga-
tion, added to the original Book of Proverbs as composed by
Solomon many proverbs which they considered to have been
uttered by that king. A spirit of the opposite kind was,
according to it, displayed by those in the Jewish Church who
denied the authenticity of the Book of Proverbs, the Song
of Songs, and Koheleth, “ because they spoke proverbs,” and
also because “they were not of the Kethubim,” the third
great division of the Hebrew Scriptures, known as the
Hagiographa. On such grounds certain persons “steod up
and declared those books apocryphal, until ‘the men of the
Great Synagogue’ came and interpreted them.”!

The difficulties felt with respect to the first admission of
the books in question into the sacred Canon, or their con-
tinued retention in that Canon, were, if one can judge from
the statements of later days, of a rather singular character.
Some of the maxims contained in the Book of Proverbs
which relate to the ordinary matters of human life, appeared
too homely to have been the subjects of Divine inspiration,
and the existence in the same collection of proverbs appar-
ently of a contradictory character increased the perplexity.?
One of the passages in the Song of Songs which in the eyes
of the early critics presented peculiar difficulties, is the
beautiful description of the charms of nature as incentives
fence to the Law was to separate the books which were of Divine origin from
those which had merely a human source. See on the nomenclature of the books
of Holy Scriptures in the Talmud, our Excursus No. 1.

1 Aboth R. N. 69 a, 694. See Excursus No, 1.

2 The passages mentioned in the Aboth of R. Nathan as having presented diffi-
culties are Prov. vii. 7, 10-20 ; Song of Songs vii. 11, 12; Koh. xi. 9; Song of

Songs vii. 10, Other passages are cited in Sabbath 304. The latter are those
referred to above.

12 Early Difficulties as to Ecclesiastes.

to love (chap. vii. 12-14), a passage which causes no difficulty
whatever to a modern theologian.

The objections brought forward against the Book of Ko-
heleth or Ecclesiastes were of a graver character. They were
founded on the apparent contradictions met with in the book
itself, the alleged opposition between some of its statements
and others in the Psalms of David, and the countenance
given in parts of the work to heretical opinions.

The following were adduced as specimens of the contradic-
tions referred to. Koheleth affirms at one time that “ sorrow
is better than laughter” (chap. vii. 3), while at another he
actually commends merriment. He represents Solomon as
in one place praising joy (chap. viii. 15), and exclaiming on
another occasion, “to joy, I said, what doeth it?” (chap. ii. 2)
In chapter iv. 2 Solomon praises “the dead which are already
dead,” but in chapter ix. 4 he affirms that “a living dog is
better than a dead lion.” Hence the Talmudic writer feels
himself driven to exclaim, “Ὁ Solomon, where is thy wisdom,
where thine intelligence? Is it not enough that many of thy
words contradict the statements of David thy father, unless
they also contradict one another ?”

Another class of difficulties arose from the apparently
erroneous opinions propounded in parts of the book. The
Midrash on Koheleth (xi. 9), states that “ Rabbi Samuel bar
R. Isaac said: The wise (men) sought to declare the Book of
Koheleth apocryphal because they found in it expressions
which inclined to heresy. They said for instance, Is this
all the wisdom of Solomon when he says, Rejoice O young
man in thy youth? [Although] Moses: says, avd go not after
your own heart (Num. xv. 39) Solomon says, and walk after

1 The objection in this case is based on a misunderstanding of chap. ii. 2. See
Excursus on the Talmud and Old Testament Canon. On the contests mentioned
in the Talmud with respect to various books of the Old Testament, see Prof. H. L.
Strack’s article on the A’anon des alten Test. in Herzog-Plitt, Real-Encyclopdadie
7 protest. Theologie u. Kirche, 2te Aufl. Band viii. 1880, pp. 429, 430.

The Solution of these Difficulties. 13

the ways of thy heart. When the rein is let loose there is no
judgment nor judge. But inasmuch as he says also, dut know
that for all these things God will bring thee into judgment,
they said, Solomon has spoken well.” !

These and other difficulties were, however, finally adjusted
by comparing carefully the passages objected to with others
which explain or modify their meaning. The closing verses
of the book (xii. 12-14) were considered perfectly satisfactory,
inasmuch as a belief in the existence of a future state is there
clearly expressed, and the doctrine of a final retribution in
another world is there distinctly taught:

The genuineness of the epilogue, or the closing verses of
Koheleth, which, according to the traditions preserved in the
Talmud and Midrash, finally satisfied the “ wise men” who
investigated these subjects, has, indeed, been often called in
question by modern critics. It can, however, be satisfactorily
maintained on critical grounds. But a more important
question to be considered is the period at which this con-
troversy actually took place.

Taking it here for granted that the Book of Koheleth
was received into the Canon of Scripture before the Chris-
tian era, these discussions could not have taken place in the
earlier days of “the men of the Great Synagogue.” Such
a controversy could not have occurred in the days of Ezra or
Nehemiah. The very expression made use of, namely, “to
declare apocryphal,” implies the existence of a literature that
was “apocryphal” alongside of literature which, for want of
a better term, must be designated as “sacred.” The Book
of Koheleth must have been recognised by a large number
as belonging to the latter class before any controversy at
all could have ariscn on the subject. Fiirst maintains that
the objections brought forward against the book arose from

1 Midrash Koheleth on chap. xi. 9. See Excursus No. 1.

14 Zhe Later Discussions in the Fewish Schools

the supposed countenance given by its teachings to the
heresies propounded by the Sadducees. Consequently, as
the Sadducees only came into notice after the Maccabean
wars, that scholar considers that “the wise men” referred to
were not “the men of the Great Synagogue,” but the
Teachers of the Law, or Tannaim, who lived in the century
immediately preceding the Christian era.

Inasmuch, however, as the difficulties already detailed
have been felt more or less by Biblical students in all ages,
it is probable that the tradition preserved in the Aboth of
R. Nathan (see p. 11), may be historically correct, and these,
or similar objections may have been discussed and answered
by “the men of the Great Synagogue” in the latter days of
the existence of that body. The form, however, in which
the objections have been cast in the Rabbinical writings is
certainly derived from later times. But, as other evidence
can be adduced to prove that the Book of Koheleth was
recognised as part and parcel of the Canon previous to the
century preceding the Christian era, we incline to main-
tain the essential trustworthiness of the tradition referred
ἴον
ΤΕ has been often stated that much difference of opinion
prevailed on the question of the canonicity of the Book of
Ecclesiastes between the rival Jewish schools of Hillel and
Shammai. The controversy on this point is said not to have
been finally closed until the Synod of Jamnia, A.D. 90, when
the Book of Koheleth or Ecclesiastes was acknowledged
as one of the canonical books of the Jewish Church. Dr.
Samuel Davidson, in his Zutroduction to the Old Testament,
regards these statements as admitted historical facts, and
they have recently been ably defended by Professor Gractz,

᾽

1 The controversy referred to is not to be regarded as identical with that which
certainly took place at a much later era between the rival schools of Hillel and
Shammai, see next page, and Excursus No, 2.

Imply the Canonictty of Koheleth. 15

on whose authority they have obtained unquestioned accept-
ance in many quarters.

The facts of the case are as follows. In the Talmudic
treatise entitled Yadaim mention is made of a difference
between the schools of Hillel and Shammai as to whether the
Book of Koheleth was or was not included in the dictum
“the Holy Scriptures defile the hands.” The school of
Hillel maintained the affirmative of this proposition, while
that of Shammai upheld the negative. When the question
was put to the vote in B.c. 65, the school of Shammai was
found to be in the majority. Some twenty-five years later a
similar controversy agitated these schools. On the latter
occasion the dispute affected not only the Book of Kohe-
leth, but also the Song of Songs, which is not said to have
been alluded to in the earlier discussion. The strife was
brought finally to an end at a second Synod of Jamnia (A.D.
118), remarkable for the deposition from the patriarchal chair
of Gamaliel II., the renowned grandson of the great Gamaliel.
Seventy-two doctors of the law took part im that assembly,
and its decision was that both Koheleth and the Song of
Songs “ defile the hands.”

Graetz has maintained that this controversy was about
the reception of the Song of Songs and Koheleth into the
Canon. But the very opposite is the fact. The decisions
arrived at prove rather that the books in question had been
admitted into the Canon at an earlier period. The point of
dispute was not, whether these particular books were to be
admitted for the first time into the Canon, but rather,
whether, though acknowledged to be’ canonical, they ought
to be regarded as inferior to the other books of Scrip-
ture, For, even long after the general acceptance of certain
books as canonical, objections were occasionally brought
against their Divine inspiration. Thus Simeon ben Manasseh,
who was a contemporary of the editor of the Mishna, main-

16 “The Holy Scriptures defile the hanis.”

tained that the Book of Koheleth ought not to be regarded as
holy, its contents being not the result of Divine inspiration,
but the outcome of Solomon’s natural wisdom.

It is necessary here to explain the meaning of the strange
phrase used in this controversy, namely, that the Holy Scrip-
tures “defile the hands.” It has often been pointed out by
J. 8. Bloch, Levy, and others that the reverence with which
the Holy Scriptures were regarded by the Jews, led to the
destruction of valuable manuscripts of the Sacred Books.
For the people often deposited copies of the Holy Scriptures
in the place where they kept bread and other things de-
signed for the use of the priests. The bread and other things
designed for the holy offerings were holy, and the Scriptures
were also holy, and hence they imagined that both ought to
be kept in one and the same place. Manuscripts preserved in
such localities were not unfrequently injured, and sometimes
utterly destroyed, by the attacks of mice and rats. This pro-
fanation of the Sacred Writings occasioned no little scandal,
and often involved serious pecuniary loss, books being pe-
culiarly valuable in that early age. To put an end to such
a state of things, and to prevent its recurrence at any future
period, a solemn ordinance was made, whereby the bread and
other things touched by the Holy Scriptures were declared
ceremonially “unclean,” and consequently unfit to be pre-
sented to the priests as heave-offerings. The result of this
regulation seems to have been most beneficial, The Sacred
Writings were no longer kept in larders, where they were
exposed to peculiar dangers, but were henceforward pre-
served in more fitting depositaries.

Bloch has clearly shown, by a quotation from another
Talmudic tract, that the regulation “the Holy Scriptures
defile the hands,” though applicable only to certain canonical
books, had no real bearing upon the canonicity of any book,

1 See Excursus No. t—‘‘On the Talmud and the Old Testament Canon.”

Not connected with the question of Canontcity. 17

For it is expressly stated in the Talmud that the said regu-
lation did not apply to the copy of the Pentateuch used by
the high-priest in the temple. It is evident that it would be
absurd to interpret such a statement to mean that that copy
of the Pentateuch was to be viewed as uncanonical. The
reason of its special exemption from the regulation was
because serious inconvenience might otherwise occur, and the
copy used by the high-priest was not exposed to the same
danger of profanation as copies of the Holy Scriptures in
private houses,!

Moreover, in Megillah 7a mention is made of Samuel
having asserted that the Book of Esther was inspired by the
Holy Spirit, although he is reported at the same time to have
affirmed that the Book of Esther did not “defile the hands,”
or, in other words, did not properly come under the ceremo-
nial regulation referred to.2 That ordinance appears to have
been designed at first to apply only to those sacred books
which were in most common use among the people, and to
have been by degrees extended to others. There was no
need, however, to apply the directions to a work which was
read only once a year, like the Book of Esther, or even to
the Book of Koheleth, which was not in such common use as
the others. The Samuel referred to, who lived nearly a
century and a half after the Synod of Jamnia, could not pos-
sibly have impugned the canonicity of the Book of Esther,
inasmuch as he himself distinctly asserted its inspiration ;
but he did dispute the propriety of applying to that particular
book the regulation agreed to by the Synod of Jamnia.

Bloch (p. 142) gives a passage from the commentary of
Maimonides on the Mishna (Megillah 7 4), in which he ex-

1 ayn add yin Os AS PSS oO NpaON bp, ‘fall the books (of the
Sacred Scriptures) defile the hands except the book belonging to the temple.”
Kelim xv. 6. See Excursus No. 2, ‘‘On the Talmudic statement that the Holy

Scriptures defile the hands.”
2 See Excursus, as before,

18 Aoheleth quoted in the Talmud as Canonical.

presses himself to the same effect, namely, “and already
thou knowest that the Holy Writings defile the hands, and
that they differ with respect to Koheleth, whether it is in
this particular one of the Holy Writings,”! that is, the Jewish
doctors differed not as to whether that book actually belonged
to the canonical Scriptures or no, but whether it came under
that special regulation.

Bloch refers also to the dispute mentioned in the Talmud,
between R. Joshua and Rabbi Eleazar ben Hyrkanus,
The latter teacher belonged to the school of Shammai,
and lived not long after the destruction of Jerusalem. He
was the pupil of Rabban Jochanan ben Zaccai, and the pre-
ceptor of R. Akiba. Both these Rabbis seem to have taken
a part in the Synod of Jamnia. The subject of controversy
on the occasion was the special sins which are punished by
the early death of one’s children. In the course of discussion,
Rabbi Joshua affirmed that only the total neglect of the Law
was thus punished by God, and cited Hosea iv. 6 in support
of his view. Rabbi Eleazar on the contrary maintained
that sins committed with respect to vows would fer se be
visited with such a punishment. He cited in defence of
his opinion Koh. v. 5, with the formula “as it is written,”
explaining the words “thy flesh” in that passage to mean
children.? As a disciple of the school of Shammai, he would
scarcely have done this, had that school denied the canonical
character of the Book of Koheleth. -

Professor Robertson Smith is, therefore, incorrect in fol-
lowing Graetz so far as to assert that:the Book of Ecclesi-
astes and the Song of Solomon “ were still controverted up to
the very end of the first Christian century,” ὃ and in quoting
in defence of that opinion the contest between the rival

‘sano ndapa pony inven ΠΝ pews wep canse ΤΡῚΣ sas)

ant pays wp vans

2'See Excursus No. 1.
3 The Old Testament in the Fowish Church, p. 172.

The Story of Herod and Ben Bita, 19

schools of Shammai and Hillel. That controversy was not
on.the question of the canonicity of those books. Whatever
difficulties may have been occasioned by some of the state-
ments of the Book of Koheleth, that book was accepted as
canonical, and its teachings regarded as authoritative, long
previous to the time assigned by Graetz for its reception into
the sacred canon, 2.2, prior to the reign of Herod the Great,
who, according to that critic, is the monarch pourtrayed in
the book under the name of Koheleth.

That the Book of Koheleth was looked upon as Holy
Scripture even in the days of Herod the Great is evident
from the following narrative, related in the pages of the
Talmud (Baba Bathra, 4 α), of which we subjoin a somewhat
free translation, accompanied by a few introductory remarks
and explanations :—

In the early part of his reign Herod put to death the
members of the Jewish Sanhedrin, partly in revenge for the
insult done to him of having been once tried for his life before
‘that body (Foseph. Antig., xiv. 9, 4), and partly because he
feared their influence among the people. He, however, spared
Sameas (identified by some with Shimeon the son of Shatach,
by others, with Shemaiah, both mentioned in Aboth i.
9-11), “on account of his righteousness,” and also, as we learn
from other sources, Baba ben Bita, a distinguished follower
of the school of Shammai. The latter was, however, by
the orders of Herod deprived of sight. Some time after,
Herod desired to know whether that Rabbi was hostile to
him on account of the loss of his eyesight, or grateful because
his life had been spared. Herod used often to go about
disguised in the garb of a private citizen, in order to ascer-
tain the feelings of the Jews towards himself and his govern-
ment (Foseph. Antig., xv. 10, 4). He accordingly visited Ben
Buta in disguise, and complained bitterly to him of the
tyrannical yoke to which the Jews were subjected. “ See

20 The Story of Herod and Ben Bila.

master,” said the subtle monarch, “what this wretched slave
is doing.” “ And what can I do to him?” was the reply of
the Jew. “Curse him, master,” rejoined his visitor. “ Curse
not the king, no, not in thy thought,” said Ben Bita, quoting
the words of Koheleth (x. 20). “But he is no king,” urged
the stranger. “And if he were only a rich man,” replied
the Rabbi, “it is also written, ‘curse not the rich in thy bed-
chamber,’” citing the concluding words of the same passage
(x. 20): “yea, if he were only a ruler, it is written, ‘Curse
not the ruler of thy people’” (Exod. xxii. 27, E.V. ver. 28).
“True,” rejoined the crafty inquirer, “if he acts according to
the practice (religious customs) of thy people, but that fellow
does not act according to the practice of thy people.” “I
am afraid of him,” exclaimed Ben Bita. ‘There is no one
here,” urged the king, “to go and tell it to him, for I and
thou are here alone.” “It is written,’’ rejoined Ben Bita,
quoting again from the same passage in the Book of Kohe-
Icth, “the birds of the heaven shall carry the voice, and
that which hath wings shall tell the matter.” “I am he,”
exclaimed Herod, struck with admiration at the caution of
the Rabbi, “ and if I had known that the Rabbis were so pru-
dent, I should not have put them to death. But now, what
reparation can I make?” “Let him,” answered Ben Buta,
“who has extinguished the light of the world,—for it is
written, ‘the commandment is a lamp and the Law a light’
(Prov. vi. 23),—go and busy himself about the light of the
world [that is, let him rebuild the temple], for it is written,
‘and all nations shall flow unto it’ (Isa. ii. 2).”

Herod hesitated for a little, and pleaded as an excuse
the peculiar position in which he stood to the Roman power.
He consented, however, at last after due consideration to do
so, in order to win over the Jewish Rabbis to his side.t

1 Bloch also observes (Ursprung τε. Entstehungsscit d, Koheleth, p. 143) that on
the occasion of another controversy between two teachers of the law respecting

Evidence of Gamaliel the Furst. 21

Although this narrative may at first sight strike one as
somewhat legendary, it appears on a closer examination
worthy of credence. The conduct of Herod in the story
corresponds with other facts recorded by Josephus. In later
times, as Bloch observes, the Jews were wont frequently to
discuss the question whether Ben Biita was justified in having
given Herod this advice, but no one ever called in question
the truth of the narrative.

If the story be true, it is a proof that the Book of Koheleth
was cited in the days of Herod the Great as of co-ordinate
authority with the Law of Moses; and even if its historical
truth be questioned, it is clear from the foregoing and from
other passages that the compilers of the Talmud had not the
faintest conception that the Book of Koheleth sprang into
existence in the days of Herod the Great.

Bloch has called attention to another narrative of the
Talmud which in some respects is even more interesting, and
which is found in Shabbath, 304. We think it well to give
the passage at more length than Bloch has done in his in-
teresting treatise. Gamaliel, the grandson of the celebrated
Hillel, and, like his grandfather, President of the Jewish
Sanhedrin, flourished about a.p. 44.1 He is remarkable

the shape of the world and the movements of the sun, which those Rabbis
naturally thought could be most certainly proved from expressions of the Holy
Scriptures, Koheleth i. 5 was the verse round which the whole discussion
turned. See Baba Bathra, 254, compare also Erub. 404, Mishn. Suce. ii.
5, Chag. i. 2. Nor are these the only instances which could be cited of
cases in which even the most ancient and renowned Jewish divines referred to the
Book of Ecclesiastes as canonical Scripture. See Excursus, No. 1.

1 Gamaliel died about eighteen years before the destruction of the temple.
There is a Christian legend that he became a secrét convert to Christianity. A
grave of St. Gamaliel is pointed out at Pisa. His father is mentioned in Shabb. 154
as having had the name of Simeon. Nothing more is known of him. In Aboth
i. 16 a saying of Gamaliel is preserved: ‘‘ Make to thyself a master, and be quit
of doubt ; and tithe not much by estimation.” Leusden (as quoted by Strack in
his handy edition of Die Spriiche der Vater mit kurzer Einl., Anmerh., und einem
Wortregister: Leipzig, Reuther, 1882) explains the last clause; ‘‘ Ne dato seepius
decimas ex conjectura, vel minus dando vel plus. Si minus dederis, avarus judi-

22 Gamaliel on Prophetic Interpretation.

among other things as having been the teacher of the Apostle
Paul (Acts xxii, 3), and as having given the notable advice to
the Jewish council, when Peter and the other apostles were
brought before that august assembly, “ Refrain from these
men, and let them alone: for if this counsel or this work be
of men, it will be overthrown ; but if it is of God, ye will not
be able to overthrow them ; lest haply ye be found even to
be fighting against God” (Acts v. 38, 39).

Though Gamaliel gave such advice to the Sanhedrin, he
soon found that it was impossible to ignore altogether the
remarkable progress of the Christian Church. He appears
to have set himself to oppose the spread of Christian ideas
among Jewish students, by arguing that the statements in
the prophets concerning the Messiah and the dispensation
to be brought in by him were totally different from those
advanced by the new school which acknowledged Jesus of
Nazareth to be the Messiah sent from God. In pursuing this
line of argument, he laid great stress upon the literal inter-
pretation of the prophecies, which, if it had been maintained
in all cases, would have been fatal to the new views so
widely disseminated among the people.

The following narrative occurs in the Talmud (Shabbath,
30 6). We have introduced explanatory remarks into our
translation in order to show more clearly the drift of the
argument. Bloch considers, but the matter is incapable
of positive proof, that the anonymous disciple of Gamaliel,
contemptuously referred to as “that disciple,” was none
other than Gamaliel’s most celebrated pupil, the great
Apostle Paul.?

caberis et peccabis ; plus dando vel prodigus habeberis vel hypocrita.’’ Taylor
explains the whole saying : ‘Let duties be defined as far as possible by rule ; let
doubts be resolved by authority ; leave as little scope as possible for personal bias
and the temptations of self-interest.”

1 It is, however, quite possible. But the expression ann SIN, on which Bloch
seems to lay stress, is so often used in an indefinite manner in the Talmud, that

Narrative of Gamaliel and his Disciple. 53

Rabban Gamaliel was sitting one day explaining to his
disciples, that in the Messianic age it would come to pass that
the curse pronounced in Paradise on woman would be re-
moved, and that a woman would be able to bear a child every
day. In proof of this he quoted the words of Jeremiah
xxxi 8: “She travails and brings forth at once.” That
disciple, laughing at this, said, “ Rabbi it is written ‘there is
nothing new under the sun’” (Koh. i. 9). Gamaliel said to
him, “Come, and I will show you instances, even in this
world” (or in this dispensation). He went out and showed
his opponent hens which lay eggs every day. By this
example Gamaliel sought to prove that there was nothing
absolutely novel in the opinion propounded, for that some-
thing analogous might be observed even in the present
dispensation. Another day the Rabbi was sitting and ex-
plaining to his pupils that in the new dispensation the trees
would bear fruit every day, in accordance with the prophecy
of Ezekiel (xvii. 23), “and it shall bring forth boughs and
bear fruit,” that is even as a tree shall produce boughs every
day, so it shall likewise bear fruit. That disciple, laughing
at this, said, “ Rabbi, it is written, ‘there is no new thing
under the sun.’” Gamaliel quickly replied, “Come, and I
will show instances in this world,” (or in this dispensation).
He went out and pointed out to him the caperberry which
bears fruit and leaves at all seasons of the year. Again,
as Gamaliel was sitting and teaching his disciples that the
land of Israel in the Messianic age would produce cakes
and clothes of the finest wool, for it is written “there shall

it can scarcely be pressed. It is remarkable, however, that a Rabbi like Bloch
should take this view. Though the narrative in the: Talmud intends to represent
Gamaliel as the victor in the controversy, one can easily see how hardly he was
pushed, and the judgment of modern readers, we fancy, will be in favour of the
disciple rather than of the great master. Bloch’s opinion on this point is
quoted with approbation by David Cohen (Kahana) in his Rabb. Hebrew Com-
mentary on Koheleth, printed in Wilna, L. L, Maz, 1881. See more in the note
on p. 25.

34 The Importance of Gamalicl’s Argument.

be an abundance of corn! in the earth” (Ps. Ixxii. 16) ;
that disciple, laughing, said, “ Rabbi, and it is also written
‘there is nothing new under the sun,” (Koh. i. 9). Gamaliel
replied, “Come, and I will show thee instances of what I
mean even in this dispensation.” He went out and showed
him cakes, mushrooms and funguses (which spring up rapidly,
and are round like cakes of bread), and clothes of Milesian
wool, and the fine bark which surrounds the soft twigs of
the date-palm.?

Gamaliel thus seems to have endeavoured to prove that
it was quite possible that the predictions of the prophets
might be literally fulfilled without anything taking place
which could not be more or less paralleled by processes
which are even now observable in nature, We have, indeed,
no sympathy with the views of the great Rabbi on this
head, though they show a great deal of ingenuity; but his
arguments may be profitably commended to the attention
of those would-be expositors of prophecy in the present day,
who so constantly exhibit a longing after the marvellous
and after so-called literal interpretations of Scripture.

The importance of this story, which is narrated in the
Talmud as one of several practical illustrations of the precept,
“answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his
own conceit” (Prov. xxvi. 5), is, so far as our present

1 There is a connexion falsely assumed here between 2 ADD (in Ps.
Ixxii. 16), and the word DD which occurs in the phrase DYDD NIND (Gen. xxxvii.
3,233; 2 Sam. xiii. 18,19). The Talmud assumes, that DB had a plural NDB;
Compare Kimchi in his Dictionary. Of course there is no real connexion between
the words.

* It is difficult to comprehend the full meaning of this passage. The true reading of
the last sentence seems to be S71P 12 872) now "0 5) MVID|I PID minpimda,
instead of nb sont. See Rabbinowicz, Band vii:, in loco.

8 Immediately following this narrative there occurs the story illustrative of the
patience of Hillel, quoted by Delitzsch in his valuable tract, Jesus wml Hillel,
mit. Riicksicht auf Renan und Geiger, verslichen von Frans Detitesch (3te Aufl.
Erlangen, 1879). The anecdote is also quoted by F. W. Farrar, in his Life of
Christ, vol. ii, Appendix. See also Strack’s article on 4/el in Ierzog-Plitt’s

The Citation from Koheleth. 25

purposes are concerned, that it tends strongly to disprove
the novel theory that the Book of Ecclesiastes was a pro-
duction of the Herodian age. Had this been the case,
Gamaliel need not have given himself any trouble to refute,
by far-fetched illustrations, his refractory disciple, inasmuch
as the entire force of the latter’s argument rested on the
assumption of the canonicity of the Book of Koheleth.!

-Real-Encyclopidie, 2te Aufl. Band vi. 1880, where: he points out the incorrect-
ness of the wild assertions of Geiger and others as to our Lord’s teaching being
founded on that of Hillel.

1 These stories of the Talmud, though probably embellished by later additions,
may be justly regarded as resting in the main on a real historical basis.
They often preserve valuable incidents concerning individuals as well as much
that is illustrative of the life and manners of very early days.—In his Studien
zur Geschichte der Sammlung der altheb. Literatur, p. 154 ff. Bloch defends the
narrative given above at greater length than in his Ursprung und Entstehungs-
zeit des Kohelect. Te considers that it is an historical fragment of undoubted
antiquity. The style in which it is composed differs materially from that of the
treatise in which it is embedded, and certain peculiar forms of expression in the
narrative are indicative of a high antiquity. In his later work Bloch maintains
even more clearly than in his earlier, that Gamaliel was controverting the idea that
the Messianic prophecies were accomplished in the-person of Jesus of Nazareth,
That distinguished Jewish Rabbi argued that a Redeemer could not have atoned
for the sins of the world, and have left in full force the penalty pronounced in
Paradise upon man for his disobedience. Not only the guilt of sin, but the effects
of sin were, according to him, to be done away with in the Messianic days. In
that era in place of the ‘“‘ great pain and peril of childbirth,” which was the curse
pronounced on the weaker sex, women would bring forth children without pain
and without long expectation ; fruitful trees would take the place of the thorns
and briers; and man, in place of being forced to ‘‘eat bread in the sweat of
his face,” would have his food provided by the bounteous earth ready for use.
Such were the views propounded by Gamaliel. Christianity had not realized such
expectations, and consequently, according to him, Jesus was not the Messiah.
Hard pressed by his obstinate pupil, who urged again and again that all such
ideas were contrary to the written word in Eccl. i. 4, Gamaliel maintained that
there was no opposition whatever between his views and the teaching of the Book
of Ecclesiastes, inasmuch as even a superficial examination of nature showed that
the fulfilment of his expectations would require nothing absolutely new; for
although the world has, in consequence of man’s sin, been thrown into confusion,
facts of a similar character can be actually pointed out even under the present
constitution of nature.

Bloch still maintains that the pupil who so pertinaciously opposed the great
Jewish master was in all probability the Apostle Paul. In defence of this
view he argues: (1) That that disciple must have been a well-known individual,
The expressions used concerning him indicate that he must have been one

26 Difficultics in certain Books of the Old Testament.

It is not surprising that peculiar difficulties should have
been felt even αἱ that early day to exist with respect to
certain books of the Old Testament, though long recognised
as forming part and parcel of the sacred Canon, nor that
attempts should have been made to exclude them from the
Canon. These difficulties seem, however, to have been at
that time fairly examined and discussed again and again
by men versed in Sacred Scripture. No attempt appears
to have been then made to stifle discussion on such points
by any ὦ priori theory of inspiration. Some of the learned
Jewish Rabbis had no doubt higher views of “inspiration”
than others of their class. But no dogmatic utterance on
the question of inspiration was promulgated by the Jewish
Church. The precedent is worthy of imitation by all
Christian Churches. The Canon of Old Testament Scrip-
ture, like the Canon of the New, had, as Delitzsch has justly
observed, also its antilegomena. Certain books in the Old
Testament Canon, long after that canon had been closed, were
from time to time objected to, not only by the assailants,
but also by many avowed defenders of revelation. These
books were opposed because their contents were regarded
as “militating against the truth of revelation and the

who had achieved a certain fame and popularity. (2) That he was no stranger
to the Pharisees, but one who belonged to their school, although opposed to
many of their views and disposed to ridicule the same. He was evidently one
who was not loved by them, as is shown by the suppression of his name. The
name of Jesus is in a similar manner suppressed in the Talmud, though there is
much there spoken against him. ** Recollections of a painful character,” were,
notes Bloch, “ connected with the name ” of the anonymous disciple, ‘* which the
Talmud, according to its usual custom, did not wish to revive.” (3) The pupil in
question was himself a disciple of Gamaliel. (4) The answer of Gamaliel contains
a vigorous onslaught on Christianity, and his style of argument shows that the
discussion affected him not a little. His opponent was one who held very different
views concerning the Messianic dispensation. ‘In a word,” says this dis-
tinguished Jewish writer of the present day, ‘‘we have brought before us in the
narrative of the Talmud, a very well known disputant on the side of Christianity,
well acquainted with the Rabbinical mode of argumentation, therefore, no other
than the fiery and zealous Apostle Paul.”

The Difficutties Solved. 27

spiritual character of revealed religion.” Those difficulties
were, however, after careful examination shown to be capable
of a fair explanation, and both the scholars who attacked
the books referred to, and the Doctors of the Law who
defended them, jointly agreed, after full and repeated dis-
cussion, to recognise their Divine authority and to maintain
their canonicity.

CHAPTER. 1

THE BOOK OF KOHELETH AND THE BOOK OF JESUS
THE SON OF SIRACH.

29

CHAPTER II.

Testimony borne to the Book of Ecclesiastes by the Book of Jesus the Son of
Sirach, 31—The author of the latter work, 31—Ecclesiasticus translated from
a Hebrew original, 32—Fragments extant in Hebrew and Chaldee, 32—Its
use of the LXX. translation, 33, 33—The first note of time in the prologue,
namely, ‘‘Euergetes the king,” 34—The second note of time, the eulogium on
Simon the high-priest, 36—The two high-priests of the name of Simon, 36—
No decisive conclusion possible, 38—Ben Sira’s reference to the Canon, 39—
Graetz’s attempt to invalidate this testimony, 4a—Use made by Ben Sira of
the Book of Koheleth, 41—Ben Sira’s additions to old proverbs, 46, 48 note.
—References in the Talmud to Ben Sira’s work, 46, 47—Sometimes referred to
as if canonical, 47—Explanation of that fact, 48—New Testament allusions to
Ben Sira, 48, 41—His work that of a Palestinian Jew, 48—The LXX. version
of the Book of Koheleth, 49—Its peculiarities, 50, §1—Traces of the influence
of Aquila on the present LXX. text, 50--Origen a witness to the existence of a
LXX. translation of Ecclesiastes, 507—The importance of this fact in relation
to the theory of Graetz, 51.

30

CHAPTER II.

THE BOOK OF KOHELETH AND THE BOOK OF JESUS THE
SON OF SIRACH.

THE silence of the New Testament and of the early Fathers
of the Church with respect to the Book of Koheleth is, as
Graetz fully admits, no argument in favour of the late date
of this book. That scholar, however, maintains that this
silence proves that a dislike to the book prevailed in the
Christian Church as well as in the Jewish Synagogue. In-
asmuch, however, as he has brought forward no evidence in
support of this latter dictum, it may be passed over without
any formal discussion.

Satisfactory evidence, however, is afforded of the existence
of the Book of Koheleth at least two, if not three centuries
before the Christian era. That evidence is contained in
the Book of Wisdom of Jesus the Son of Sirach, more
commonly known by the title of Ecclesiasticus, a title the
meaning of which is still a subject of dispute. The full
name of the writer of that remarkable book of proverbs and
wise sayings appears to have been Joshua ben Sira ben
Eliezer, or Ben Sira (NVD }2)-as he is called by the Rabbinical
writers. We shall speak of him under the latter designation.

The reference to the Jewish Scriptures in the prologue of
Ecclesiasticus, when viewed in connexion with the statements

1 The fact of his grandfather's name being Eliezer rests only upon the reading
of the Alex. and other MSS. in chap. 1. 27, where that name is inserted
before the word ‘Iepocodvulrys. But the authority for this reading is doubtful.

See Fritzsche in the Kurzgef. exeget. Handb. su den Apokryph.
3t

32 «= Ecelestasticus translated front the TTebrew.

on the subject found in the literature of a later period, goes
far to prove that the Book of Koheleth had been admitted
into the Canon long before the time of Ben Sira’s grand-
father. The Greek text of the Wisdom of Jesus the Son
of Sirach is avowedly a translation from a Hebrew original.
More than forty verses of that Hebrew original have for-
tunately been preserved in the Babylonian or Jerusalem
Talmuds; a few are also to be found in other early Rab-
binical writings. Some sayings ascribed to Ben Sira are
extant only in Chaldee, others in both: Hebrew and Chaldee.
By far the greater number of the verses extant in Hebrew
and cited by Delitzsch (in his Geschichte der jiidischen
Poesic), or inserted in the larger collection of Ben Sira’s
Hebrew and Chaldee proverbs (in) Dukes’ Raddbinische
Blumentlese), may be easily identified with passages which
occur in the Greek version.

Though there is reason to doubt the genuineness of all
these sayings of ‘Ben Sira, most of the Hebrew proverbs
ascribed to him, and not a few of those in Chaldee, must
be regarded as genuine. The Greek version exccuted by
Ben Sira was by no means a simple translation, but rather
a working-up of the old materials left by his grandfather,
with a considerable number of new aphorisms.

The Book of Ecclesiasticus is supposed by Dr. Pusey and
others to have been composed as early as the latter part
of the third century before Christ. The majority of the
critics of the present day consider, however, that it cannot
be. assigned to an earlier date than the second century before
Christ. For the earliest date assigned by tradition to the

1 The following are the verses extant in Hebrew: chaps. ili. 21 ; vi. 63 vii.
10; ix. 8,93 ix. 10; xi. 15 xii. 4, 55 xiii. 15 (xxvii. 9); xiii, 255 xiv. 11, 17;
XVill. 23 5 XXV. 3, ἃ XXV. 175 XXVi-T, 35 NXVL. 12 (14) 5 xxx. 22, 235 xxxill,
20, 24 ; Xxxvil, 17 5 XXxvili. T ; xxxvili. 4, ὃ; xl, 305 xlii, 9, 10, Some of these,
however, assume a somewhat different form in the Hebrew from that in whith
they appear in the Greek.

Use made by Ben Siva of the LXX. Version. 33

Greek translation of the Jewish Scriptures, commonly known
as the LXX. version, is the reign of Ptolemy Philadelphus
(B.C. 283-247). Reference is made in the prologue of Ben
Sira’s work to a translation of the Jewish Scriptures into
Greek as then in existence, and the allusion is of such a
nature as to’ leave the impression on the reader’s mind
that it was even at that period no recent innovation. The
proverbs of Ben Sira, moreover, afford evidence not to be
gainsayed of an intimate acquaintance on the part of the
editor with the LXX. translation,! and that fact has been
regarded by some as inconsistent with the hypothesis of
the early composition of the work.

It must, however, be remembered that the earliest date
assigned to Ben Sira’s Greek edition of his grandfather's
work is B.C. 237-211; and if the correct explanation of the
title commonly given to the Greek translation, namely, the
version of the LXX., be that that translation——though it
afterwards fell into disfavour,?—received the formal sanction
of the Jewish Sanhedrin of the day (for no one, of course,
credits the story told by Aristeas of the seventy translators),
it is quite possible for Ben Sira to have made use of it even
so early as B.C. 237-211.

The account given by Ben Sira in his prologue with regard

1 Fritzsche (Zinleitung, p. xxil.) compares in proof of this, chap. ii. 2 with the
LXX. version of Deut. xxxii. 36; chap. xx. 29 with Deut. xvi. 19; chap.
xxxvi, 29 with Gen, ii, 18; chap. xliv. 16, 17, 19, 21 with Gen, y. 24, vi. 9,
xvii, 4, xxii. 18; chap. xlv. 12 with Exod. xxviii. 36; chap. xlix. 7 with Jer.
1. 10, and notes that in chap. xlv. it is plain from a: comparison of the references
there made to the Book of Exodus that the LXX. translation of the passages
in question formed the model which Ben Sira followed. As examples of this
he adduces words or phrases, such as περισκελῆ, ἔργον ποικιλτοῦ, λογεῖον κρίσεως.
Moreover, certain phraseology had been introduced’ into popular use from the
Greek translation which preceded Ben Sira, and the mode of writing Hebrew
names in Greek had become fixed, so that even errors were perpetuated without
any attempt to alter them. Bissell also, in his excellent work on the Afocrypha
of the Ο. T., gives additional instances. See his introd. to Eccles. p. 277.

2? See note, p. 38. ᾿

D

34 Two Kings of Egypt surnamed Eucrgetes.

to the time when he visited Egypt is unfortunately obscure.
His words may be interpreted to mean that he visited Egypt
when he was thirty-cight years of age, “when Euergetes was
king.” But they have been also interpreted to mean that
he visited Egypt in the thirty-eighth year of the reign of
Euergetes. If the latter translation could be proved to be
correct, the actual date of the book could be approximately
ascertained. Able scholars, however, differ as to the correct
translation of the clause, and very confident assertions have
been made on both sides of the question.! Two of the mon-
archs of Egypt bore the title of Euergetes, or Benefactor.
The first was Ptolemy III., who was justly designated a bene-
factor of the people. He reigned from B.c, 247 to 222, and
during his reign Egypt was prosperous‘and flourishing. The
second monarch known by that title was Ptolemy VIL, nick-
named Physcon, or the Fat, who was noted for his immorality
and cruelty. He assumed the title of Euergetes, misnomer

1 The Greek phrase in the prologue ἐν yap τῷ ὀγδόῳ καὶ τριακοστῷ ἔτει ἐπὶ
τοῦ Ἐὐεργέτου βασιλέως is obscurely rendered in the A.V. ‘‘for in the eight
and thirtieth year coming into Egypt when Euergetes was king.” Fritzsche
translates: “ coming into Egyptin the eight and thirtieth year of king Euergetes.”
Professor Westcott of Cambridge, in his article on Zeclesiasticus in Smith’s
Dictionary of the Bible, remarks in a note that ‘fit is strange that any doubt should
haye been raised about the meaning of the words, which ca only be, that the
translator ‘in his thirty-eighth year came to Egypt during the reign of Euergetes’ ;
though it is impossible now to give any explanation of the specification of his age.
The translations of Eichhorn and several others, ‘in the thirty-eighth year of the
reign of Euergetes,’ is absolutely at variance with the grammatical structure of the
sentence.” Many instances, however, of this very same construction actually
occur in the LXX. translation of Haggai and Zechariah, e.g, ἐν τῷ δευτέρῳ ἔτει ἐπὶ
Δαρείου writs one niv'a), agg. i. 1, ti. 1; Zech. i. 7, vii. 1, etc., and it is
quite possible that one so thoroughly acquainted with the LXX. translation as
Ben Sira was, would imitate its renderings, even if Dr. Pusey (Davtied the Prophet,
PP. 391, 302, and note) be correct in maintaining that the rendering of the passages
in Haggai and Zechariah ‘‘is no natural translation, not the way in which a
Hebrew would think in Greek, and so not a Hellenistic idiom, but a mere
rendering of one man.” Dr. Pusey refers to 1 Mace. xiii, 42, xiv. 27, to prove
that the idiom implies a concurrent date, but the examples referred to tell quite in
the opposite direction, Iissell well remarks : ‘* The grammatical point of West-
cott, upon which Winer [De τεύχη σης Stracttc etate (Evlangen, 1832) ; and Bid/.

What ts meant by the Thirty-erghth Year. 35

though it was, with the royal diadem in B.c. 170. Though
he did not obtain real possession of. the throne of Egypt
until the death of his brother Ptolemy VI., or Philometor, in
B.C. 146, he yet termed that year the twenty-fifth of his
reign, thus dating his reign back from the year in which he
had first assumed the royal title.’ Hence Ben Sira might
well speak of the thirty-eighth year of Euergetes 11., although
that monarch’s actual reign over Egypt did not extend to
more than twenty-nine years. In face of the fact that
Ptolemy VII. actually assumed the title of Euergetes, we can
attach little importance to the argument of Dr. Pusey, that
a pious Jew would not have referred to a blood-stained
monarch like Physcon by the title of Euergetes. It would
probably have been dangerous for Ben Sira to have applied
any other title to the then reigning monarch. It must not
be forgotten that the expressions used in his prayer at the
close of his book, prove that he himself was once in imminent

Realwérterbuch, ed. v.} also insists is not proved. Winer says, if the thirty-eighth
year of the reign of Euergetes were meant, the Greek would not have been ἐπὶ τῷ
ὀγδοῷ etc., but ἐν... ἔτει τῷ ἐπὶ τοῦ Evepyérov. But the passages from the
LXX. cited by Stanley [Yewish Church, vol. ili. p. 266, namely, those mentioned
above, with the two passages from 1 Mace.], and others adduced by Abbot in his
note in the American edition of Sith's Bible Dictionary, have a direct bearing
on-the question ; and, if allowed the full weight that belongs to them in a gram-
matical point of view, they approach the binding force of a rule. Hence the
opinion that Euergetes I., who reigned but twenty-five years (B.C. 247-222), is not
meant, but that Euergetes II., Physcon, is meant, who reigned jointly with his
brother twenty-five years (B.C. 170-145) and alone twenty-nine years (B.C. 145-116),
must be accepted as probable.”

1 This strange fact is proved beyond dispute. Fritzsche refers in proof of it
to Lepsius’ Avnigsbuch der alt. Aegypter, 1858, Synopt. Taf. p. 9, and quotes the
following passage from Porphyrius (in Euseb. Chron. ed. Aucher, vol. i. p. 240) :
μετακληθεὶς ἐκ Kupiwns ὁ Ἐὐεργέτης καὶ βασιλεὺς ἀναγορευθεὶς τὰ ἔτη αὐτοῦ ἀναγράφει,
ἀφ᾽ οὗ πρῶτον βασιλεὺς ἐνομίσθη, ὡς δοκεῖν μετὰ τὴν τοῦ ἀδελφοῦ τελευτὴν ἄρξαντα
αὐτὸν ἔτεσιν εἴκοσι πέντε ἀνατιθέναι ἑαυτῷ τέσσαρα καὶ πεντήκοντα. TS γὰρ
τριακοστὸν ἕκτον Φιλομήτορος δέον προσαγορεύεσθαι τῆς τούτου βασιλείας, πρῶτος
αὐτὸς εἰκοστὸν πέμπτον προσέταξε γράφεσθαι, καὶ οὕτως ἀμφοτέρων μὲν ἑξήκοντα
τέσσαρα, τοῦ μὲν Φιλομήτορος λέ, τὰ δὲ ὑπολειπόμενα τοῦ Hvepyérov. Ἢ δὲ ὑπο-
διαίρεσις ἐν τοῖς κατὰ μέρος ποιεῖ πλάνην.

36 The two High Priests named Simon.

peril on account of some accusations preferred against him
before the king of Egypt (chap. li. 2-12).

Hence the note of time given in the prologue to the
book does not afford as much assistance as might have
been expected on the question of the date of its com-
position. It, however, proves clearly that the book cannot
have been translated much later than B.C, 120, and that
the date of Ben Sira’s grandfather cannot be assigned to
a later period than B.C. 170.

The second note of time found in the work, namely, the
poetical eulogium on Simon the son of Onias the high priest
(chap. 1. 1-21), is somewhat more decisive. The language,
indeed, of that glorious eulogy suggests the idea that the
writer is there speaking from personal recollections. Too
much reliance, however, cannot be placed on this argu-
ment, for it is of course possible that the writer took his
description from some poet of an earlier date, or from
the reminiscences of his grandfather. If there were two
monarchs of Egypt who bore the title of Euergetes, there
were also two remarkable high priests named “Simon the
son of Onias.” The first of these was Simon the Just,
spoken of in the Talmud as one of the last of “the men of
the Great Synagogue” (sce p. 9). He probably lived in the
earlier days of the Grecian domination (b.c. 299-287). The
second was Simon II, who was high priest from B.C. 266-108.
Scarcely any historical incidents of the life of the latter are
recorded, although he appears to have been held in reputa-
tion among the Jews. The legend concerning him given
in 3 Maccabees ii. 1-24 proves this. According to it, when
Ptolemy Philopator was about to profane the sanctuary
at Jerusalem, he was, at Simon's earnest prayer, suddenly
stricken down, and had to be dragged out half-dead from
the temple which he had just entered. The narrative of
3 Maccabees has, no doubt, little claim to be regarded as

The Character of Simon 77. 37

historical fact, but it proves at least that the hero of such
a story must have been popularly regarded as a man of sanc- Ὁ
tity. Bissell, indeed, asserts that Josephus does not give a
single favourable feature in his delineation of Simon II.’s
character, but on the contrary describes him as siding with
the sons of Tobias, “who were violent supporters of Hel-
lenism as opposed to the strict interpretation and practice of
the Mosaic law” (Axdig., xii. 4,§ 11). But this statement is
scarcely correct. Josephus nowhere gives any delineation of
the character of Simon II. In the passage referred to, he
simply states that when the elder sons of Joseph, the distin-
guished farmer of the taxes of Syria,—whom Josephus speaks
of, as “a good and magnanimous man,” ἀνὴρ ἀγαθὸς καὶ
μεγαλόφρων, Antig., xii. 4, § 10,—broke out into open hosti-
lity against Hyrcanus their half-brother, Simon the high
priest sided with them because he was nearer of kin to them
than to Hyrcanus.

It is, however, worthy of note that Schiirer, one of the
most eminent modern scholars who have investigated the
subject, asserts (Weutest. Zeitgeschichté, p. 453) that there is
no doubt that Simon the Just was the. high priest Simon I.
Fritzsche argues that Ben Sira must necessarily refer to
Simon 11., because he speaks of “the house” as having been
repaired again in his days and of the temple as having been
fortified (chap. 1. 1-4). Tradition is silent on this point, and
this silence of history is, according to him, in favour of Simon
II. But as Bissell well notes, the silence of history tells as
much against Simon II. as against Simon I. He argues also
that history is not wholly silent. “In his wars with Demetrius,
Ptolemy 1. Soter found it necessary at one time to leave his
possessions in Coele-Syria and Pheenicia, and, in doing so, in
order to give his opponent no advantage on account of the
fortified places which they contained, he caused such fortifi-
cations to be destroyed. This we know to have been true of

38 Probable Date of the Book of Feclestasticus.

Acco, Joppa, Gaza, and Samaria, and there is good reason
for supposing that it was true of Jerusalem also. Here,
then, would be found the needed occasion for Simon I. to
repair the house again and fortify the temple.”

If, however, Simon I, be the high priest alluded to in the
eulogy of Ben Sira, it is possible that, after all, the interpreta-
tion of the doubtful expression in the prologue defended by
Dr. Pusey and by not a few German scholars may be correct,
and that the book was composed in the reign of Euergetes I.
The use of the LXX. translation is by no means a certain
proof that Ben Sira’s translation of his grandfather’s work
must have been so late as B.C. 120. The book of Ben Sira,
as it lies before us, is unquestionably the production of a
Palestinian Jew, and the translation of the LNX., though, as
noted before (p. 33), held at first in high esteem, was after-
wards looked upon as a national calamity, when the results
of the Hellenic influence on Jewish national life became
fully apparent! A Palestinian Jew, though he might write
in Greek for the benefit of his Greek-speaking countrymen,
and for others also, would scarcely, so shortly after the revolt
against the Grecian supremacy, allude, in the way Ben Sira

} The manner in which the LXX, translation of the Pentateuch is spoken of in
the Babylonian Talmud (A/egz//a, 9 a), where referénce is made to the legend of
the-seventy translators, and to King Ptolemy's command to translate the Law, is
highly favourable. The number seventy-two, which occurs in the text of the
Talmud, is a mistake (See Miiller, Sopherim, p. 13).. Even certain differences of
reading between the LX.X. and the Hebrew text are spoken of as made by Divine
suggestion. A similar spirit pervades the parallel place in the Jerus. Talmud,
though no mention is made of several points in the legend. See Frankel, Το)":
studien 21 der Sept., pp. 25 ff. But the Masechet Sopherim, i. ὃ 8, which speaks
of only five translators,—one probably for each book of the Pentateuch,—breathes
a different spirit. There the day in which the Greek translation was completed
is spoken of as a day of misfortune to Israel, like that in which the golden calf
was made at Iloreb. The latter view, according to the opinion of Dr. Joel
Miller, AZascchet Sopherim (Leipzig, 1878), p. 12, dites from the times of war
and conflict with the Greeks, when war was also waged against the language of
the foe. See also Biesenthal’s remarks in his Zyostschrethen des A postels Paulus an
die Hebrier (Leipzig, 1878), pp. 60 ff.

The References in Ben Sira to the Canon. 39

has done, to a translation which had caused so much offence.
An Alexandrian Jew would, of course, have no difficulty in
this matter.

All such arguments are, however, not only inconclusive but
specially liable to be fallacious, and hence we are disposed to
accept, provisionally at least, the general conclusion arrived
at by modern scholars, namely, that Ben Sira’s work was
executed about B.C. 120; the date of his grandfather, accord-
ing to this, cannot have been later than B.c. 170. If then
evidence can be adduced to show that the original author, or
his translator, was acquainted with the Book of Koheleth, the
latter work must have been in existence at least two cen-
turies before the Christian era. And, if it can be shown that
Ben Sira speaks of a canon of Scripture, and no proof can
be adduced that that canen received additions at a later
period, the conclusion is rendered more certain that the Book
of Koheleth formed part of the Jewish Scriptures prior to
the Maccabean era.

In the prologue to his work Ben Sira refers to the triple
division of the Jewish Scriptures not only as well-known to
himself, but also as in use in the days of his grandfather
Jesus. Short as that prologue is, it contains no less than
three distinct references to this fact. It begins with the
clause: “ Whereas many and great things have been delivered
to us by the Law and the Prophets, and by others who have
followed after them.” Next Ben Sira remarks, “ My grand-
father Jesus, having given himself up more and more to the
reading of the Law and the Prophets and the other Books
of our fathers, and having obtained sufficient experience in
those, was drawn on to write something himself.” And
finally he observes that not only his own translation of his
grandfather's work, “but even the Law itself and the Pro-
phecies and the remainder of the books, have no small differ-
ence when recited in their own language,” in which last

40. The Canon closed before the time of Ben Sura.

clause distinct reference is made to the Greek translation of
the Scriptures.

These allusions to the Jewish Scriptures as forming one
great whole sub-divided into three parts, the Law, the Pro-
phets, and the Writings, are just as clear as our Lord's
allusion to the same fact in Luke xxiv. 44. Such references
are not, indeed, sufficient evidence to prove that all the
books included in the third division of the Jewish Scriptures
in later times were actually contained in the canon as it
existed in the days of Ben Sira. Nor do they altogether
exclude the possibility that the Canon of Scripture in that
early day may have contained some books which at a later
date were not permitted to retain their place in it.

But, in order to render such hypotheses at all probable,
evidence must first be adduced to prove that new books were
actually added to the number of the Sacred Writings subse-
quently to the time of Ben Sira, or at least that the canon
was altered in some way or other. No such evidence, how-
ever, has yet been discovered. Considerable controversy, no
doubt, arose at a later period on the question whether certain
books ought not to be excluded from the number of the
Sacred Scriptures, the argument put forward for such ex-
clusion being that they did not bear the impress of Divine
inspiration. But the fact of such discussions having taken
place actually proves that the special books objected to
were regarded as “ canonical” at that time."

Gractz admits that the prologue to Ben Sira’s work proves
that the “Canon” of the Prophcts was already closed. But
he maintains that its language indicates plainly enough
that the third division of the Scriptures was not then re-
garded as completed; inasmuch as that division, designated
in later times by the name of “the Writings” (Ὁ) 272), or
Hagiographa, had then no special name. It is sufficient

1 See pp. 15 ff, and Excursus No. 2.

Ben Siva an tmitator of Koheleth. 41

here to observe in reply, that the order and arrangement of
the Sacred Books were not always the same. Such books as
Ruth and Lamentations, etc., which in later times were placed
in. the Hagiographa, are said, though. this is doubtful,! to
have been in earlier days classed among the Prophetical
Writings. The third division of the Sacred Writings re-
ceived no fixed appellation for centuries later, a fact abun-
dantly proved by the references to that division in 2 Macca-
bees, in the New Testament, in the writings of Josephus, and
even in the traditions of the Talmuds.*

In addition to the general testimony borne in the prologue
to the Jewish Canon as a whole, the work of Ben Sira con-
tains not a few passages which show beyond all reasonable
doubt that the writer was well acquainted with the Book of
Koheleth. It may indeed be affirmed that it is as easy to
maintain that the author of the Book of Koheleth borrowed
ideas from the Book of Ben Sira. But the latter work is
confessedly the work of a compiler, while the Book of Kohe-
leth is, as is generally acknowledged, “marked by an almost
exceptional originality” (Plumpire).

An examination of a few of the aphorisms found in the
Book of Ecclesiasticus will be sufficient to show that Ben
Sira in many passages imitated Koheleth.

Little importance must, indeed, be attached to resemblances
such as that which exists between aphorisms like, “ Who will
pity a charmer that is bitten by a serpent” (Sir. xii. 13),
and “ Surely the serpent will bite without enchantment ”
(Koh. x. 11). But the expression used in Sir. xiii. 25, “The
heart of man changeth his countenance,” is certainly akin
to that in Koh. viii. 1, Δ. man’s wisdom makes his face to
shine, and the coarseness of his face shall be changed.” The

Ὁ See Strack on the Anon des alt. Test. in Herzog-Plitt’s Real-Encyclopaidie,

Ρ. 433-
2 See Excursus No. t—On the Talmud and the Old Test. Canon,

42 Ben Stra's tmitations of Koheleth.

two passages appear even more nearly related when com-
pared, as is possible in this case, in the original Hebrew.
The question asked in Sir. xix. 16, in reference to the undue
notice often taken of careless or angry. expressions : “ There
is one that slippeth in his speech, but not from his heart ; and
who is he that hath not offended with his tongue?” may well
be compared with the remark of Koheleth, “ There is not a
just man upon earth that doeth good and sinneth not;” which
observation, it must not be forgotten, is immediately followed
by the precept, “take no heed unto all words that are spoken,
for oftentimes also thine own heart knoweth that thou thyself
hast cursed others” (Koh. vii, 20-22). St. James seems to
refer to the aphorism of Ben Sira in a remark which he
makes to the same effect, namely, “in many things we all
offend,” or “stumble,” in words (James iii. 2).1

Ben Sira observes (xx. 6, 7) that “ There is one that keeps
silence, knowing there is a time” (καιρός) 1... for silence.
“ A wise man will keep silence until the time (ἕως καιροῦ) ;
but the braggart and the fool passes over a time” (καιρόν).
These are observations evidently founded on the teaching
of Koh. ii 7, who speaks of a “time to keep silence and
a time to speak” (καιρὸς τοῦ σιγᾶν καὶ καιρὸς τοῦ λαλεῖν---
LXX.). On the fool and his propensity for talking Ben Sira
also says, “ The lips of talkers will be telling such things as
pertain not unto them; but the words of such as have under-
standing are weighed in the balance” (xxi. 25, 26). Com-
pare with this Koheleth’s sayings (x. 2, 3), “ἃ wise man’s
heart is at his right hand; but a fool’s-heart at his left; yca
also, when he that is a fool walketh by the way, his wisdom
faileth him, and he saith to every man that he is a fool;”
and (verses 12, 13) “ The words of a wise man’s mouth are

1 It is worthy of notice that the [pistles of the two “brethren” of our Lord,
James and Jude, are full of references to current Jewish traditions, and tu writings
not canonical,

Ben Sira’s imitations of Koheleth. 43

gracious, but the lips of a fool will swallow up himself. The
beginning of the words of his mouth is foolishness ; and the
end of his tall is mischievous madness.”

In Sir. xxvii. 26 we read, ‘““Whoso diggcth a pit shall fall
therein ; and he that setteth a trap shall be taken therein.”
This is nearly identical with Koh. x. 8, “ He that diggeth a
pit shall fall into it; and, whoso breaketh a hedge, a serpent
shall bite him.” But, forasmuch as the same thought is found
in Prov. xxvi. 27, “Whoso diggeth a pit shall fall therein; and
he that rolleth a stone, it shall return upon him” (also in
Ps. vii. 15), we cannot consider such passages as conclusive
proofs of an acquaintance on the part of Ben Sira with the
Book of Koheleth. A number of other passages may be
accounted for by the fact that parallels are to be found in
other books of Scripture, such as the Proverbs, Psalms and
Prophets. Hence we do not adduce such texts as Sir. ix. 3 ;
Xl, 17-4 Χυ 28 1 ΧΧΧΙΝ, 13, ete.

The maxim “Make not much babbling (or rather “re-
peat not thy words ἢ) when thou prayest ” (Sir, vii. 14),—an
injunction which is also given by our Lord in a somewhat
modified form in His Sermon'on the Mount (Matt. vi. 7),—is
most probably founded on the directions given by Koheleth
(chap. v. 1, in A.V. chap. v. 2) with respect to prayer, “let
thy words be few.” Similarly, the warning of Ben Sira with
respect to vows is so evidently based on Koh. v. 3, that it is
impossible to believe that the two passages can be independent
of. one another. “Let nothing,” says Ben Sira, “hinder thee
to pay thy vow in duc time, and defer-not till death to be
justified (by the performance then of vows made long before).
Before thou prayest (rather, “before thou vowest,” for the
original Hebrew of this maxim, which is fortunately pre-
served, proves that the latter is the correct interpretation of
the Greek phrase!) prepare thyself (Heb. “thy vows”), and be

‘ Sir. xviii. 23. The verse preceding is, ‘‘ Let nothing hinder thee to pay thy

44 Len Stra’s imitations of Koheleth.

not as a man that tempts the Lord.” Similarly, the saying
of Ben Sira (xxi. 12), “ There is a wisdom which multiplieth
bitterness,” strongly reminds us of Koheleth’s statement
(i. 18), “In much wisdom is much grief, and he that in-
creaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow.”

Who will not at once perceive in the aphorism of Ben Sira
(xiv. 18) “One cometh to an end and another is born,” a
repetition in other words of Koh. i. 4, “ One generation cometh
and another goeth”? In Sir. xvi. 30, “And they (the living)
shall return into it (the earth) again,” there is a reappearance
of the thought expressed by Koheleth (iii. 20), “All are of the
dust, and all turn to dust again,” although both passages are,
of course, founded on Gen. iii. 19. A more distinct reference
to Koheleth, however, is to be found in Sir. xl. 11, “ All
things that are of the earth shall turn to the earth again, and
that which is of the waters doth return into the sea;’” which
certainly reminds us of the remark of Koheleth, used, how-
ever, in another connexion: “all the rivers run into the sea.”
Sir. xiii. 22, 23, and x. 23, may be profitably compared with
Koh. ix. 14-16; and the warning against a presumptuous
continuance in sin because God does not immediately punish
the sinner, which is given in Sir. v. 5-7, seems, though the
words are dissimilar, to be a reminiscence of Koh. viii. 11-13,
The latter passage appears also to have been in the mind
of Ben Sira when he wrote (i. 13), “ Whoso feareth the Lord,
it shall be well with him at the last.” The directions given
in Sir. xiv. 14 ff. not to refrain from enjoying a day of
festivity, and to do so because death will soon deprive men
of all such enjoyments, must unquestionably be regarded as

vow in due time ;” or, as Bissell better renders it, ‘* be not hindered from paying

a vow (εὐχήν) in due time,” ‘‘and defer not until death to be justified” by the due
performance thereof ; verse 23 is rendered in the Auth. Version, ‘‘before thou
prayest prepare thyself.” The Greek is πρὶν εὔξασθαι ἑτοίμασον σεαυτόν, which is
explained ay the Hebrew F772 P37 wna DOA, ‘before thou vowest, prepare
thy vows,” i.e., see that thou hast the power and readiness to fulfil the same. See
Dukes’ Ladd, Llumentese, p. 70, and Fritzsche’s note on the passage.

Ben Sira’s imitations of Koheleth. 45

based on the teaching of Koheleth (v. 18 ff; vi. 1 ff, etc.).
The like may also be affirmed of Sir. xl. 1, which is akin in
some respects to Koh. i. 3, 5.

Nor is this all. Mr. Tyler has admirably pointed out the
intimate connexion which exists between the several clauses
of Sir. xxxiii, 13-15 and those of Koh. vii. 13-15. The
remark about the potter’s clay in the former passage is no
doubt derived from Isaiah, but in every other clause of the
passage of Ben. Sira, when examined. in the original, there
appears such a remarkable correspondence with the verses in
Koheleth that it cannot be regarded as fortuitous, Similarity
of phraseology between the two books often occurs when
we least expect it, and even in the original of single ex-
pressions such as Sir. xxxiii. 11, “in much knowledge”
(ἐν πλήθει ἐπιστήμης) we often come across imitations of
the Hebrew Koheleth. (Compare M235 173, Eccl. i. 18).

Casual readers of the two books may be struck by the
allusion made by Koheleth to princes walking on foot and
servants riding on horses (ix. 15), and the similarity between
it and Ben Sira’s remark that “many kings have sat down
upon the ground, and one that was never thought of hath
worn the crown” (xi. 5). But far more noteworthy is the close
resemblance between Ben Sira’s aphorism (xiii. 26), “The
finding out of parables is a wearisome labour of the mind,”
and the observation of Koheleth (xii. 12), “Of making many
books there is no end, and much study, is a weariness of
the flesh.” Tt has also been thought that Sir. xviii. 6 is
founded on the expressions used in Koh. vii. 13; xi. 5. The
connexion is more plain between Ben Sira’s proverb (xxvi.
23), “A wicked woman is given as a portion to a wicked man;
but a godly woman is given to him that feareth the Lord,”
and the remark of Koheleth on the evil woman (vii. 26),
concerning whom he says, “ whoso pleaseth God shall escape
from her, but the sinner shall be taken by her.” Equally

46 Ben Stra’s additions to Old Proverbs.

significant is the likeness between the aphorism of Ben
Sira (xxxiv. 7), “Dreams have deceived many, and they
have failed that put their trust in them,” and the saying of
Koheleth (v. 7), “In the multitude of dreams and many
words there are also divers vanities; but fear thou God.”
The praise of agricultural pursuits in Sir. vii. 15, is also
remarkable, and may be an imitation of the second clause
of Koh. v. 8.

We are tempted to append to this enumeration of pas-
sages, proving that Ben Sira was well acquainted with the
work of Koheleth and borrowed thoughts from it, a remark-
able quotation from the latter among the proverbs in Chaldee
ascribed to Ben Sira. “Cast (lit. strew) thy bread upon the
face of the water and on the dry land, and thou shalt find it
in the end of days.” The reader need not be told that this
aphorism is quoted from Koh. xi. 1, with the addition of the
words “and on the dry land.” It is this latter that marks
the aphorism in this form as probably a genuine saying of
Ben Sira. For that sage was fond of tacking on new endings
to old proverbs. One of the Hebrew proverbs several times
ascribed to him in the Talmud is, “All the days of the
afflicted (poor) are evil, (and) also their nights,” the first
portion of the saying being a quotation from Prov. xv. 15.
The same peculiarity may be observed in many passages
found in the Greek Sirach, as for instance chap. xv. 19, the
first part of which is a quotation from Ps. xxwiii. 18; and
chap. xvi. 16, where a similar addition is made to Gen. i. 41

Many intcresting questions present themselves with respect
to the Book of Ecclesiasticus which cannot here be fully
discussed. Though the Talmud cites Ben Sira’s sayings with
approval, it prohibits his book to be read in public; persons
being permitted to read it in private as they might read
ordinary letters. It classes the work with “the extrancous

1 See note 2, on p. 48.

Ben Siva sometimes quoted as Canonical. 47

books,” and R. Akiba declared that the man who reads
such profane works “has no portion in the world to come”
(Jer. Talmud, Sanhedrin, chap. x. 28 a@)1 Delitzsch con-
siders (Gesch. der jiid. Poesie, p. 20) that the unfavourable
judgments of the Babylonian teachers relate only to the
Chaldee Targum, or version, of the book, and not to its
Hebrew original. The Hebrew original was, however, driven
out of the field by the Chaldee version, which, though
abounding in interpolations, was more accessible to the
people. Earlier Jewish authorities of repute strangely speak
of Ben Sira’s work as if it were canonical, notwithstanding
that the prologue distinctly speaks of it as making no claim
to “canonicity.”. Among those persons who speak of it
as “canonical,” the name of Simon ben Shatach (B.C. 90)
;stands pre-eminent. He was esteemed as one of the Jewish
“fathers,” and a saying of his is given in the Treatise
Aboth (i. 10). A remarkable instance of a similar fact oc-
curs in Baba Kamma (92 ὦ), where the proverb is quoted “a
bad palm-tree wanders about and goes along with lazy,
or barren, trees,’ and Rabbah bar-Mare observes that “ this
matter is written in the Law, repeated in the Prophets,
reiterated a third time in the Kethubim (the writings, or
Hagiographa), and handed down in the traditions, and again
in the Barajtha. Written in the Law, as it is written
[Gen. xxix. 9] ‘and Esau went to Ishmael ;’ repeated in the
Prophets, as it is written [Judges xi: 3], ‘and there were
gathered to Fephthah vain men, and they were with him ,;’
and reiterated a third time in the Kethubim (the writings),
as it is written, ‘every bird dwells by its kind, and the
son of man by one who is akin to him,” The last passage
is.a saying of Ben Sira, found in chap. xiii. 1§ ; xxvii. 9.
These facts give an appearance of plausibility to the opinion
advanced by Professor Graetz, namely, that the Book of Ben

1 See Excursus No. 1.

48 Explanation of thts curious fact.

Sira and other Hebrew writings may have been at one time
admitted into the Jewish Canon, though eliminated from it
at a later age. This is, however, scarcely probable, and the
evidence adduced in favour of the opinion is not sufficient
to justify such a theory.) The true explanation of the
difficulty seems to be, as Strack has pointed out, that
Rabbah bar-Mare quoted from memory as usual, and forgot
that the passage adduced by him asa proof text was not
to be found in the Kethubim, from which he had intended to
have quoted an appropriate text.?

Graetz refers, indeed, further to the statement of the

1 See Exeursus No, 1.

? The passages adduced to prove that the Book of Ben Sira was at one time or
other regarded as canonical are as follows :—The first instance is a passage quoted
in the Babyl. Talmud (Aerach. 48 a), with the formula 29ND4, ‘‘as it is written,”
and quoted in the Jer. Talmud (erach. vii. 11 4), in the Midr. Bereshith § 91, and
jn the Midr. Koh. vil. 12, with the formula 22 δὲ Ἰ2 NIDA. = The
citation which immediately after follows is in the Jer. Talmud and Midrash,
Jaen Day 12} ἼΘΘΥ ΠῚ mbov0 ; the first two words are the beginning of
Prov. iv. 8, ‘‘exalt her and she shall promote thee,” to which Ben Sira added,
‘*and she shall set thee between princes.” See my remarks, on p. 46. In the
Babyl. Talmud the latter clause does not occur, but Prov. iv. 8 is quoted entire,
so that the quotation there is wholly from canonical Scripture ; and that instance
is not ad vem. It may be noted that this proverb of Ben Sira does not occur in
the Book of Ecclesiasticus. The nearest approach to it is perhaps chap. xv. 5.
The second case is Erub, 65a, where Chija bar Ashi is adduced quoting the
remark of Rab, ‘‘he who is not of a calm understanding should not pray.” It is
added ‘taccording to that which is written (A) Sy aya qo Dw), in
excitement let him not pray.” The corresponding passage in Ecclesiasticus is
supposed to be chap. vii. 10, μὴ ὀλιγοψυχήσῃς ἐν τῇ προσευχῇ σου, “de not Saint-
hearted in thy prayer” (Comp. Luke xviii. 1). The identity of the proverbs is
disputed by several scholars. Strack, in his article in the Kanon des alt. Test.
before referred to, considers that in this instance, as in the third example which
is fully quoted above in our text, there was a direct intention on the part of the
teacher in question to give a quotation from canonical Scripture, but that by a slip
of memory in both cases the passage cited was from Ben Sira, the mistake arising
from his book being for the most part written in the phraseology of the Sacred
Wiuitings. No Jewish authority ever speaks of the Book of Ben Sira as belonging
to the Canon; on the contrary, the reverse is expressly stated. It is worthy of
note that John Bunyan similarly relates, in his Grace Abounding, § 65, that he
was for a long time comforted by a passage which he thought was from canonical
Scripture, and was perplexed at last on discovering that the passage was from
the Book of Ecclesiasticus, namely, chap. ii. 10.

New Testament allustons to Strach. 49

Barajtha (to be found in Yadaim iii. fol. 141 4) in which,
commenting on the books which do not “defile the hands”
(see p. 15) the remark is made that “the Book of Ben Sira
and all the books which were written from that time onwards
(JN) IND) do not defile the hands,” or, in simple language,
are not canonical. But Graetz’s view of this passage, namely,
that it refers, not to the period later than the age of Ben
Sira, but rather to that after the Synod of Jamnia (which
Synod is alluded to in the text of the Mishna) or even to
a later period, is not likely to meet with the approval of
scholars.!

Broad and liberal in its tone, the work of Ben Sira, though
its Greek translation was executed in Alexandria, is a
genuine product of the Old Testament dispensation, and in
the main reflects the opinions of a Palestinian Jew. Not a
few passages of the New Testament seem to show an ac-
quaintance with its sayings, though they are nowhere
quoted as Scripture? The Epistle of St. James, peculiarly
Palestinian as it is in its tone, exhibits perhaps the most
distinct traces of its influence. Even the exhortations of

1 The words of the Toseft. Yadaim are, according to the edition of Zuckerman-
del, p. 683, Soy ev J2 ED DT NS NINN YR PIT MDD) odin
OVA My prov ys TON) INI INDI DAD: “the gospels (09999537 for
eypbar7) and the books of the heretics do not defile the hands, the Book of
Ben Sira, and all the books which were written from that time onwards, do not
defile the hands.”

2 The only distinct reference to Ben Sira in the New Testament is that in
James i. 19, the phrase used there, ἔστω δὲ πᾶς ἄνθρωπος ταχὺς εἰς τὸ ἀκοῦσαι, being
based on, though not a quotation of, Sirach v. 11, γίνου ταχὺς ἐν ἀκροάσει cov. The
thought contained in the latter clause of James i. 19; βραδὺς els τὸ λαλῆσαι, is akin
to Sirach iv. 29, μὴ γίνου τραχὺς ἐν γλώσσῃ cov, but is far nearer that of Koheleth
y. I. See also our remarks on James iii. 2, p. 42, The direction in James v.
14-15 shows traces of an acquaintance with Ben Sira’s remarks on prayer and
medicine, See note on p. 4, St. Paul in Rom, ix, 20, 21 may have had Sirach
xxxiii. 13 in his mind, though his illustration of the potter is more akin to Isa. xlv.
9; lxiv. 8; or Jer. xviii. 6. Other supposed references, such as that to Sirach ii. 15
in John xiv. 23, to Sirach xi. 18, 19 in Luke xii. 19, and to Sirach xv. 15 in Matt. xix.
17, are fallacious, and arise from the fact that “similarity of topics led to similar
modes of expression.” (See Davidson's /vtroduction to the O. T., vol. iii, p. 421.)

E

50 The LXX. Translation of Ecclesiastes.

that epistle, directing men in the case of sickness to make
use, along with earnest prayer, of the best remedies which
human skill could suggest, may be traced to the influence
of the Jewish sage of an earlier period. For Dukes has
satisfactorily shown that the praise and commendation of
physicians to be found in the book of Ben Sira (xxxviii.
I-15) are not to be regarded asa proof that Ben Sira exercised
that profession himself, but cn the contrary that his exhort-
ation “to honour a physician” and his medicines, “for the
Lord hath created him” and them, was levelled at the
spirit of fatalism which was beginning to leaven the minds of
the Palestinian Jews. The Book of Ben Sira, we would only
note in conclusion of this subject, must have been composed
at a considerably earlier date than the “ Book of the Wisdom
of Solomon,” and prior to that outburst of sensual scepticism
which led to the production of the latter work by a writer,
who with all his failings was inspired with a spirit more akin
to the New Testament dispensation.

The existence of the Book of Ecclesiastes in the Canon of
the LXX. is opposed to the novel hypothesis of its compo-
sition so late as the time of Herod the Great. There are
no doubt many points with respect to the LXX. which are
as yet very imperfectly understood, and the Greek translation
of Ecclesiastes, which forms now part and parcel of that
version, presents some very striking peculiarities which require
more investigation than has yet been bestowed upon them.
The phraseology used in the LXX. version of that book is
in some particulars strongly redolent of the translation of
Aquila, and Graetz has maintained that it is really the
second and improved edition of Aquila. But if the version
incorporated into the LXX. translation be that of Aquila,
then that portion of the LXX, text cannot be ascribed to
an earlier date than A.D. 120 or 125.

One of the most remarkable peculiarities of Aquila’s

Traces of Aquila in the present Text. 51

version is his rendering by the Greek σύν the Hebrew par-
ticle (NN) which distinguishes in certain cases the accusative.
This phenomenon appears in the translation of the Book of
Koheleth. But it is to be observed that the rendering is by
no means uniform. Graetz remarks that twenty-one cases
occur in the book in which the Hebrew particle is not thus
rendered. He explains this fact by supposing, first, that the
particle in question did not occur so often in the Hebrew
text which Aquila used, as in that which formed the basis of
the Masoretic recension; and by supposing, secondly, that
the Greek copyists may have in many cases, either from
accident or deliberation, omitted the same. Prof. Graetz has,
however, not given an accurate statement of the facts of the
case. There are more than seventy instances in the book in
which the Hebrew particle is found in our present text; and
in less than half does the favourite rendering of Aquila occur
in the Greek text of the Septuagint.1 Whilst, therefore, it is
tolerably certain that the Greek translation of the Book of
Ecclesiastes found in the LXX. version in the form in which
it has been handed down to us, has incorporated not a few

1 TN is rendered by ow in chap. ii. 17, iii, 10, iii, 17 δίς, iv. 3 (NWPON-N,
σὺν πᾶν τὸ ποίημα, the reading of the Greek differing here from the Hebrew text).
So also in vii. 14, as a prep. with dative, vii. 26, vii. 29, viii. 8 (MITA NN), viii.
15, vill. 17, ix. 15 (ΠΤ ΤΙΝ), xi. 7, xii. 9, 2e, 14 times. So also NN when
‘followed by bs is rendered by σὺν in composition with πᾶς eg. chap. i, 14
σύμπαντα, ii. 18, iii. 11 δῆς ; in this verse in the second instance codex B., but not
A. or S., inserts ‘‘all” which is omitted in our Hebrew text, σύμπαντα τὸν αἰῶνα,
nbyn-ne. So in chap. iv. 1 (not in S.); in chap. iv. 2, B. (not A. or S.) in-
serts ‘‘al/,” which is omitted in the Hebrew text, σύμπαντας τοὺς τεθνηκότας,
DYNA NN ; inchap. iv. 4 δὲς, iv. 15, vii. 15, viii. 9, viii. 17, ix. 1 δὲς (the clause, how-
ever, in which this occurs, forms part of viii. 17 in the Greek) ix, 11 cod, B, alone
has σύμπασιν αὐτοῖς, Ὁ) ΓΙ ; xi. 5, xii. 14, ic. 17 times, Inall14+17=31 times,

MN is not rendered by σὺν in chap. i. 13, ii. 3, ii, 10, ii, 12, il. 20, 11, 24, iii, 11
(AWYPATN), iii, 15, iv. 3 (JTYTWN NN), iv. 5 δέν, iv. 8, iv. 10, v. 3 (σὺ οὖν ὅσα
ἐὰν εὔξῃ ἀπόδος), nor inv. 5, in three instances, 7° NN, WA NN, ΠΟ nN.
In chap. v. 6 for the Heb, 87’ onbsn Nis, the Greek has ὅτι σὺ τὸν Θεὸν φοβοῦ,
So also the NN is not rendered by σὺν in chap. v. 19, vii. 7. vii. 13 δίς, vii. 18

52 <1 LXX. Translation independent of Aguila.

of the renderings of Aquila, it is unlikely that it was itself
the work of that translator.

Dale has noted the care taken in the LXX. text to preserve
the order of the Hebrew words. ‘In Ecclesiastes this order
is so strict that, with hardly an exception, it would be possible
to print the Greek text as it stands as an interlinear transla-
tion.”

But the fact that Origen actually made use of another
Greek translation of the Book of Koheleth which he cites
as that of Aquila,—alongside of the Greek translation of
Koheleth, which is given as that of the LXX.—proves
very clearly that, although the present text of the LXX. is
probably a composite one and may actually contain many
of the renderings of Aquila, a Greek translation of Eccle-
siastes was in existence in the days of Origen, which was
recognised as forming an integral part of the well-known
LXX. translation. Something similar may have occurred
in regard to the version of Ecclesiastes like that which
happened to that of the Book of Daniel, in which the trans-
lation of Theodotion has for many centuries taken the
place of the LXX. The fact that Origen made use of a
version of the book known as that of the LXX., as also that
the present Greek one cannot in its entirety be regarded as
that of Aquila, is a proof that the Book of Ecclesiastes itself
must have been in existence for a considerable time previous
to the execution of the LXX. translation of the Hebrew
Scriptures, or, in other words, at an earlier period than the
work of Ben Sira.

bis (J7" NS and nbs NN), in vii. 21, viii. 8. IVA MN, rendered τὸν παρ᾽ αὐτῆς; nor
in viii. 9, (125 NN), viii. 16 dis, ix. 7, ix. 12, ix. 15 (ΟΠ ΠΝ), x. 19 (97 AN),
a. 20, xi. 5 (TMV NN), xi. 6, xi. 8, xii. 1, xii. 13 δὴν, or in all 40 times.

This matter, as well as other points of a kindred nature, needs more critical
examination than it has yet received. Aquila has πο σὺν for MN in Gen. vi. 3, ix.
22, 23, xxii. 2. xxvii. 15 ; Exod. xxiv. fo, and possibly in other passages.

CHAPTER III.

THE BOOK OF WISDOM AND THE BOOK OF
KOHELETH.

CHAPTER. Il.

Leaning of the Book of Wisdom towards Greek philosophy, 55—Composed
before the time of Philo, 56—Probably in reign of Physcon, 57—Viewed as
inspired by several of the Fathers, 57—Not the production of a Christian Jew,
58—Written under the name of Solomon, 60—Strange denial of this fact, 60
—The author not guilty of imposture, 61—His object in assuming the mask of
Solomon, 61-——Forgeries of Jewish writers in later times, 62—Favourable con-
ception of the character of Solomon, 64—Difficulties of belief referred to in
Book of Koheleth, 65—Object of the writer of that book, 66—Different state
of thought in the later days of the Greek rule, 67—The free-thinkers of
Alexandria, 67—Their appeal to the Book of Koheleth, 68—The writer of the
Book of Wisdom opposes their views, 70—Apparent contradictions to the Book
of Ecclesiastes, 7o—Value of the Book of Wisdom, 72—Supplied a gap in the
creed of the Jewish Church, 73—Allusions to-its phraseology in the New
Testament, 74—Wisdom a guide to immortality, 75—The description of the
righteous man in the Book of Wisdom, 75—That book a preparation for the
revelation of Christ, 76.

54

CHAPTER III.
THE BOOK OF WISDOM AND THE BOOK OF KOHELETH.

WE cannot enter further upon the consideration of the
various questions connected with the date and authorship of
the Book of Koheleth without considering at some length
the peculiar relation which exists between it and the Book
of Wisdom.

The latter work, generally known by the title prefixed to it
in. the LXX. version, namely, “The Wisdom of Solomon,”
must have been composed at a date subsequent to the com-
pletion of the celebrated Greek translation of the Jewish
Scriptures. This is evident from the use made of that
version. The writer of Wisdom exhibits a deep and ardent
faith in the leading doctrines of the Jewish creed, but at
the same time shows that he has an acquaintance with,
and a sympathy for, some of the characteristic tenets of the
Greek philosophers. Thus, for instance, he has borrowed
from the Platonic school the mention made of the four
cardinal virtues, namely, temperance, prudence, righteousness,
and manliness. His doctrine about “shapeless matter” (ὕλη

1 For instance, in chap. xv- το, the author quotes from the LXX. translation
of Isaiah xliv. 20, the phrase σποδὸς ἡ καρδία αὐτοῦ, though that is not a correct
rendering of the Hebrew. In chap. ii. 12, the phrase put into the mouth of the
free-thinkers concerning the righteous man, ὅτε δύσχρηστος ἡμῖν ἐστί, is taken
from the LX.X. translation of Isaiah iii. 10. Moreover, as Grimm notes, thesense
in which ἐτάζξειν is used in chap. vi. 7 is derived from the usage of the LXX.,
and in chap. xvi. 22, and xix. 21, there is a reference to the LXX. translation
of Exodus xvi. 14, and specially to that of Numbers. xi. 7.

2 Chap. viii. 7, καὶ εἰ δικαιοσύνην ἀγαπᾷ ris, ol πόνοι ταύτης εἰσὶν ἀρεταί.

σωφροσύνην γὰρ καὶ φρόνησιν ἐκδιδάσκει, δικαιοσύνην καὶ ἀνδρείαν. ‘These are the
55

56 The Book of Wisdom prior to the time of Philo.

ἄμορφος, chap. xi. 17) the pre-existence of the soul, and
sundry other matters is derived from the same source.
Such a combination of Jewish faith and Greek philosophy
was a marked characteristic of the Jews in Alexandria from
the third century before Christ, but cannot be traced to an
earlier period.

On the other hand the Book of Wisdom must have been
written long before the age of Philo. It cannot have been
composed after the Roman conquest, as Holtzmann considers
possible, for its teaching on the chief points discussed is
far from being identical with that of Philo. The Divine
wisdom, though a central subject throughout, is nowhere
regarded as a personified being like the Logos of the Alexan-
drian philosopher. Many Platonic doctrines which occupy
an important place in Philo’s system are sought for in vain
in the Book of Wisdom. Opinions, which in Philo’s writings
assume the form of fundamental dogmas, appear in the Book
of Wisdom only in a rudimentary form. In other words,
the Book of Wisdom presents us with a far earlier stage
of philosophic thought than the works of Philo. The two
authors must have been separated from one another by a
considerable interval of time.?

For these and other reasons it is most probable that the
work was composed about a century, or a century and a half,
before the Christian era. It was evidently written at a time
when the Jews resident in Egypt had to suffer consider-
able persecution at the hands of their heathen neighbours.
During the reign of the earlier Ptolemies the Jews were well

four cardinal virtues known to Greek ethics. In 4 Mace. v. 22, 23, εὐσέβεια takes
the place of φρόνησις, but in 4 Macc. i. 18, the list is identical to that given in
the Book of Wisdom. See Grimm on this passage, and Deane’s note in his
recent excellent commentary on the book (Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1881). See
also Grimm on the passage in 4th Macc. in his Comm., pp. 300-1.

1 See Deane’s Prolegomena, p. 33; Grimm, Linleitung, p. 22; and Bissell,
Introduction to Book of Wisdom, p. 226.

Viewed as inspired by some of the Fathers. 57

treated in Egypt. They were, however, much persecuted
during the reign of Physcon (B.C. 145-117) and his succes-
sors. These persecutions called forth the reflections in the
closing chapters, in which the writer enlarges on the origin
and folly of idolatry, and the punishment of idolaters. His
remarks were designed to comfort and support his country-
men amid the severe trials they had to suffer under Egyp-
tian misrule. The original language of the book was Greek,
not Hebrew or Aramaic, a fact which even a cursory ex-
amination is sufficient to prove.!

The writer was evidently a Jew resident in Alexandria,
and his book contains several striking indications of its
having been composed amid the scenes daily witnessed in
that great maritime city.

It is scarcely necessary, in the face of such facts, to
do more than allude to the opinion held by several of the
Christian Fathers, such as Clement of Alexandria, Hippolytus
and Tertullian, namely, that the Book of Wisdom was
written by Solomon. No modern scholar of repute defends
such a theory. But it is worthy of note that some of the
Fathers, such as Origen, Eusebius, and Augustine, who

. e τ ὧι
doubted or denied the Solomonic authorship of the work,
maintained withal its Divine inspiration?

No doubt a Hebrew colouring, as Grimm observes, pervades the first ten
chapters in the parallelism which imitates the Psalms, Job and Proverbs, and in
certain Hebraisms which occur in that portion. But the genuine Greek
character of the book is seen in the richness of its vocabulary and the number of
the synonymes employed, especially adjectives, in the technical expressions of
the Platonic. and Stoic philosophers, and in the numcrous examples of compound
words and expressions, as well as in the frequent play upon Greek words,
and such figures of speech as paronomasia, onomatopoeia, oxymora, etc. See
Grimm, Zinlettung, pp. 5-7; Bissell, p. 224.

* Thus Origen Cont. (εἰς. iii. 72, cites it as ws ὁ θεῖος λόγος ὁρίζεται : Eusebius
Prep. Evang., i. 11 (Tom. i. p. 66, ed. Gaisford) says κατὰ τὸ παρ᾽ ἡμῖν λόγιον τὸ
φάσκον" ἀρχὴ πορνείας ἐπίνοια εἰδώλων (Wisdom xiv. 12) ἄς, Augustine (De
pradest. sanct. i, 11) says, ‘‘ quee cum ita sint, non debuit repudiari sententia libri

Sapientiz, qui meruit in ecclesia tam longa annositate recitari et ab omnibus Chris-
tianis . . . cum veneratione divinz auctoritatis audiri . . . etiam temporibus

58 Not written by a Christian Jew.

It has sometimes been maintained that the Book of
Wisdom was the production of a Christian Jew. But this
hypothesis has been conclusively disproved by Grimm. The
speculations of Plumptre rest upon no real basis.1 Some of
the sayings which occur in the book sound indeed like echoes
of sentiments found in New Testament writings, But all

proximi apostolorum egregii tractatores, . . . eum testem adhibentes nihil se
adhibere nisi divinum testimonium crediderunt.” It must, however, here be noted
that the Book of Wisdom mentioned in Melito’s letter, found in Eusebius Ais. Eccd.
iv. 26, in which a list of the books of the Old Testament Canon is given (the
Book of Esther being, however, omitted), is not the Apocryphal book, but only
another title of the Proverbs of Solomon. The words of Melito are Ψαλμῶν
Δαβὶδ, Σολομῶνος Παροιμίαι, ἢ καὶ Σοφία, Ὠκκλησιαστὴς, “Awa ἀσμάτων, ᾿Ιώβ.
It can be clearly proved that some of the Christian Fathers called the Proverbs
Tlavaperos Σοφία; and traces of the same usage are extant even among early
Rabbinical writers. See Delitzsch, Das Salomon. Spruchbuch, Einl. p. 31. Grimm,
Einl, in Weishat, p. 36.

1 Noack (in his Ursprung des Christenth., Leipz. 1837, vol. i. p. 222) was the
first to suggest the idea that Apollos was the author of the Book of Wisdom. The
theory has been further developed and ably defended by Professor (now Dean)
Plumptre in two articles on the Writings of Apollos, which appeared in the first
vol. of The Expositor, edited by the Rev. S. Cox (Hodder and Stoughton, 1878).
Plumptre partially reproduces some of his arguments in his Introd. to his work
on Ecclesiastes, pp. 67 ff. He maintains that the Book of Wisdom was
written by Apollos before his conversion to Christianity, and the Epistle to the
Hebrews after that event. His whole argument is based on the admitted fact
that certain phraseology peculiar to the Alexandrian school of Judaism occurs in
the Book of Wisdom and reappears in the Epistle to the Hebrews. This, how-
ever, proves nothing more than that the writer of the latter book was well
acquainted with the former. Deane well observes τ “ΤῸ any unprejudiced mind
the:contrast between the two is most marked ; the difference of style is too great
to be reasonably attributed to different phases of the same intellect. There is
nothing in Wisdom like the continuous interweaving of the Old Testament
Scriptures which is found in the Epistle ; there is no exhibition in the Epistle of
the acquaintance with Pagan learning which is sO prominent a feature of the
earlier work. The resemblance in language may be paralleled from Philo, and
might be equally well used to support his claim to the authorship of either.
For those who hold the Pauline origin of the Epistle to the Hebrews, no other
argument is needed to discredit this theory ; for those who leave the question
about the Epistle doubtful, it is enough to say that: the date of Apollos does not
coincide with what we have shown to be the probable date of our book, that we
know absolutely nothing of that Apostle’s writings, that the verbal similarities
are capable of another explanation, and that the scope and object of the two
writings are wholly different.” See also Grimm’s able remarks on the supposed
Christian origin of the book, in his Zywleitung, p. 25.

Its Teachings different from those of the N.T. 59

such sayings can easily be accounted for, as the author of
the Book of Wisdom and the writers of the New Testa-
ment drew their inspiration in this respect from a common
source, namely, the Scriptures of the Old Testament. Ewald
is certainly correct when he asserts that not even a single
verse of the Book of Wisdom is derived from any Chris-
tian source. The doctrine of the immortality of the soul
propounded in the Book of Wisdom is very different indeed
from the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead taught
by the writers of the New Testament. The author’s dogma
of the pre-existence of the soul was certainly not derived
from an Apostolic source. The beautiful description of
the righteous man (in chap. ii. 12-20), though regarded by
many of the early Christian writers as a prophecy of Christ,
and curiously corresponding in some of its details with the
facts of gospel history, can be proved, on a closer examina-
tion, to have no such meaning.?

1 The chief grounds on which it is maintained that this passage is intended as
a description of Christ, prophetical or otherwise, are the statements ‘‘he calleth
himself the child of the Lord” (ver. 13), and ‘‘he makes his boast that God is
his father” (ver. 16) when compared with John v. 18, xix. 7. Compare also ver. 18
with Matt. xxvii. 40, 43. The statement also “ he professeth to have the know-
ledge of God” (ver. 13) is strikingly parallel with those in John vii. 16, xv. 15;
Matt. xi. 27. The shameful death of ver. 20, corresponds with the death on the
cross, and the references of ver. 21 may be compared with John xii. 40, 1 Cor.
ii. 8. But Grimm well remarks against this interpretation: (1) that δίκαιος, the
righteous man is clearly a collective. This is plain from the interchange of the
plural δίκαιοι (chap. iii. 1 ff) with the sing. δίκαιος (chap. iv. 7 ff). The δίκαιοι in
chap. iii. 1 ff are identical with the δίκαιος cf chap. ii, (2) The relation of the
pious to the worldly and godless is the same at alltimes. IJence it is not strange
that a description of the ideal righteous one should find its counterpart in Christ.
(3) The similarity of the circumstances fully explains the similarity of many expres-
sions in this chapter of the Book of Wisdom with certain found in the speeches of
the Jews against our Lord. Several of the expressions are borrowed from Psalm
xxii. If the description be regarded as having proceeded from the pen of a
Christian writer, Grimm fairly argues that two points are incomprehensible ; (1)
That the author should have brought forward as the opponents of Jesus materialists
and frivolous sensualists in place of hypocritical and self-righteous Pharisees who
blindly adhered to the Mosaic law and the Jewish tradition. Noack’s attempt to
make out that the Sadducees are here described is most unsuccessful. (2) There

60 The Book of Wisdom professedly by Solomon.

The writer of the Book of Wisdom put forward his views
under the mask of Solomon. This fact has indeed been very
strangely called in question by the Rev. David Johnston, the
author of a recent Treatise on the Authorship of Ecclesiastes.
That gentleman asserts that “the allegation that the Book of
Wisdom personates Solomon is scarcely borne out by the
contents of the book.” He adds, “In Ecclesiastes Solomon
is specified as the author and autobiographer every whit as
distinctly and definitely as if he were actually named ;
whereas he is neither named nor specified in the Book of
Wisdom. It is indeed true that much which is said in the
seventh chapter would suit Solomon, especially where the
writer says, verse 7, ‘Wherefore I prayed, and understanding
was given me: I called pox God, and the spirit of wisdom
came to me.” Yet this is just such language as a Hellenistic
admirer and imitator of Solomon might honestly use, with-
out any desire or attempt to pass off his Greek treatise in the
praise of wisdom as a production of the Hebrew monarch.”

From such a statement—which, as it occurs in a work
exhibiting a certain amount of scholarship, cannot be passed
over in silence—it is evident that the writer of the Treatise
on the Authorship of Ecclesiastes never read through the
Book of Wisdom. One of the most striking peculiarities
of the book is, that, although it abounds in allusions to the
patriarchs and other heroes of the Old Testament, no proper
name of person, town, country, or river, is ever mentioned.
It is true, therefore, that the name of Solomon does not

is not in all the description of the Book of Wisdom the slightest hint afforded
of the atoning power of the sufferings and death of the righteous man pourtrayed
by the author.

1 See chap. iv. pp. 85 ff and chap. v. p. 114.

2 This verse is given by Mr. Johnston in the original Greek. We have taken
the liberty of quoting it above in English.

8 The mention of the Red Sea in chap. xix. 7 is the only apparent excep-
tion to this usage throughout the book, and it cannot be regarded as a real
exception.

Lts Author not guilty of imposture. 61

occur in the book. But it is no less certain that the author
writes in the name and under the character of Solomon.
Solomon’s royal birth (chap. vii. 4, 5; ix. 12), his prayer for
wisdom (chap. vii. 7, 8; ix. 4-12), his desire for that gift in
his early days (chap. viii. 2) in order that he might be fitted
to act as king over Israel (chap. viii. 10, 11, 14, 16; ix. 4-12;
compare I Kings iii. 7, 8 ff), for which position his youth
and inexperience would have otherwise rendered him unfit
—all these facts, and more also, are distinctly referred to
by the writer as his own personal experiences. In proof
of this it is only necessary to quote the words of the prayer
in chap. ix. 7,8. “Thou hast chosen me to be a king of thy
people, and a judge of thy sons and daughters: thou hast
commanded me to build a temple upon thy holy mount, and
an altar in the city wherein thou dwellest, a resemblance
of the holy tabernacle, which thou hast prepared from the
beginning.”

It is not, however, right to accuse the author of the Book
of Wisdom as guilty of forgery, or of “deceit and false-
hood,” because he chose to put forward his work under the
name of the great monarch of Israel. Whatever may have
been the misconceptions of later days in consequence of
this assumption of a fictitious character, no person in the
author’s day and generation could have been ignorant that
the mask of Solomon was put on only for a special purpose.
The fact of the author having composed and published his
book in Greek would of itself have been sufficient to prove
that the work was not by the great king of Israel, and
the frequent references to philosophic opinions current in
Alexandria at the writer's day made it still more apparent.

The reasons which induced the author to put forth his views
under the name of Solomon appear to have been as follows:
The Jewish free-thinkers in the great Egyptian capital had
dared not only as individuals to put in practice the ungodly

62 The Book of Wisdom an Anti-Ecclestastes.

maxim, “ Let us eat and drink for to-morrow we die” (1 Cor.
Xv, 32), but had even ventured to defend their scepticism,
and to apologise for their sensuality, by appealing to the
authority of the wisest of men, and to his experience as
recorded in the Book of Koheleth. It was to manifest their
impiety, and toconfute their folly, that the writer of the Book
of Wisdom sought under the name of Solomon to point out
the teachings of true wisdom, and to demonstrate that what
these would-be wise men termed “wisdom,” was, to use the
Apostolic language of a later day, a wisdom which “cometh
not down “from above,” but “earthly, sensual,’ and—the
last epithet applied by St. James to similar aberrations may
also be added, namely,—“ demoniacal” (James iii. 15).

The Book of Wisdom has, therefore, in some respects been
correctly described as an Anti-Ecclesiastes, Its author does
not venture to condemn the canonical Book of Ecclesiastes,
but he again and again distinctly refers to that book, and
unhesitatingly condemns false views of life and false prin-
ciples of morality apparently enunciated under the sanction
of a great name!

In assuming, therefore, the name and stand-point of Solo-
mon, and in stepping forward in that character to do battle
for the cause of God and of religion, the writer of the Book
of Wisdom acted more nobly than other Jewish writers in
Alexandria, who at a later period laid themselves fairly open
to the charge of “deceit and falsehood” by attempts, which
seem to have been for a time successful, to introduce Jewish
opinions, and even Old Testament prophecies, into the pro-
ductions of heathen authors. Hence the oracles of the
Sibylls were found to give utterance to Jewish sentiments.

1 This lecture was delivered before the University of Dublin, Nov 28th., 1880.
Plumptre, in his Introd. to his work on Ecclesiastes, published in 1881, has partly
taken up the same ground, though he adheres to his theory as to the author-
ship of the Book of Wisdom, noticed in note on p. 58,

Ἂ

x

Forgeries by the Jews of a later era. 63

“The voice was Jacob’s voice,” although the form in which
the teaching was presented was of Gentile origin. The evil
practice once introduced soon became popular among a class
of writers not deficient in a certain kind of literary ability,
and Jewish ideas and Jewish principles were instilled into the
minds of Gentile students under the apparent authority of
ancient heathen poets, such as Linus and Orpheus.

But, although forgeries such as those referred to, originally
dévised in the interests of religion, must be unhesitatingly
condemned by all real lovers of truth and righteousness,
it must not for one moment be supposed that the author
of the Book of Wisdom, in assuming the mask of Solomon,
has exposed himself to the same righteous condemnation.
He wrote under the full conviction that the views advocated
in his work were the conclusions of Divine wisdom, and he
ventured to publish his opinions in the intellectual capital
of the heathen world as in reality echoes of that wisdom
which had been bestowed upon Solomon from above.

Grimm has well remarked that David was ever regarded
as the great hero and religious poet of the nation of Israel.
Psalms written by unknown writers at various times of Jewish
history were without scruple ascribed to “ the Sweet Singer of
Israel,” who had himself composed so many hymns. Solomon,
on the other hand, was looked upon as the impersonation
of wisdom; and, inasmuch as he was renowned both for
the number and variety of his own proverbs, and as a col-
lector of the wise sayings of others, the majority of the moral
maxims and proverbs which passed current among the
Israelites were ascribed to him. Justly celebrated in sacred
history as the wisest of mankind, and as having had the
largest practical experience as well as the highest intellectual
knowledge, is it to be wondered at that moral writers, whose
great object was to point out the teachings of the highest

1 See Dahne's fidisch.-Alexandr. Religions-Philosophie, vol. i. pp. 81 ff.

64 favourable conception of Solomon's character.

wisdom, should have been led to represent its utterances as
proceeding from the lips of Solomon ?

One of the peculiarities of the Book of Wisdom is the
favourable light in which the author throughout regards the
character of Solomon. The contrast which exists in this
point between the apocryphal Wisdom of Solomon and the
canonical Book of Koheleth is remarkable, and may be
adduced as a proof of the composition of the latter book at
a far earlier period than that of the former. The Book of
Koheleth does not scruple to refer to Solomon's polygamy
in uncomplimentary terms, while the writer of the Book of
Wisdom has gone so far on the other side as, without any
allusion whatever to Solomon’s gross misconduct in this
particular, to put exhortations to chastity and purity into the
mouth of that king. The silence of the Book of Wisdom
with respect to the sensuality of the great monarch is highly
significant. For in later times Jewish authorities, quoted with
approbation in the Talmud, ventured not only to palliate
but actually to explain away all the crimes which David and
Solomon committed. These writers even dared to maintain,
in face of the statements contained in the First Book of Kings,
that Solomon was really innocent of the sin of idolatry.!

1 In the Talmud Babli, Shabb. 564, Rabbi Samuel bar Nachmani states that
Rabbi Jonathan said that ‘he who says Solomon committed sin makes a mis-
take.” Compare Delitzsch, Rohling’s Talmudjude beleuchtet, 7te Ausg. pp. 93 ff,
where more will be found about Rabbi Jonathan and his attempts to exculpate
Solomon, etc. Another authority quoted there attempts to prove that Solomon
did not actually erect temples to the false gods of his wives, but merely had the
intention of doing so. In the Jerusalem Talmud, Sanhed., chap. ii. fol. 20 4,
Rabbi Jose is reputed to have maintained that Solomon loved his strange wives in
order to win them under the Law, and to bring them under the wings of the
Shekinah. The same idea is propounded in the Midrash on the Song of Songs
on chap, i. 1, where many authorities are cited in its favour. The same Midrash
in an earlier place endeavours to explain away the fact that Solomon spent thirteen
years in building his own palace, while he spent only seven years in the erection of
the temple, by maintaining that Solomon’s palace was not more splendid than the
temple, but that the work of building the furmer was prosecuted in a less energetic
manner.

The Scepticism noticed in Book of Koheleth. 65

‘ If we possessed no other account of his career than that
given in the Book of Wisdom, we should naturally conclude
that Solomon, not only at the commencement of his reign,
but throughout his whole life, was a bright example both of
intellectual wisdom and of moral purity. It must here in
fairness be observed that the writer of the Book of Chronicles
also makes no allusion to Solomon’s grievous transgressions.
In the latter case, however, it would be rash to assign a
cause for the omission of all mention of that king’s apostasy,
for the Books of the Chronicles exhibit numerous other
omissions which cannot with safety be ascribed to any par-
ticular causes known to us.

The form of scepticism presented in the Book of Koheleth,
if it can with any propriety be designated by such an ap-
pellation, was that found among persons not only outwardly
reckoned among “the faithful,” but really believers. Those
whom he addressed: may perhaps be described as believers
walking in darkness, and crying out amid the gloom for
“light, more light.” They were, like the Psalmist of old,
pained within them because the ungodly were in such
prosperity (Ps. Ixxiii.), and because little or no distinction
seemed to be made in the arrangements of Divine provi-
dence in this world between the just and the unjust. The
secrets of the life to come had not yet been clearly revealed.
The stone had not been rolled away from the grave by the
resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead. The earnest
remonstrance, which even the prophet Jeremiah was con-
strained to give utterance to, may be considered as expressing
the thoughts of many a heart. “Righteous art thou, O
Lord, when I plead with thee; yet let me talk with
thee of thy judgments: wherefore doth the way of the
wicked prosper? Wherefore are all they happy that deal very
treacherously?” The deep mystery of the sufferings of the
godly in this life had even at an earlier period formed the

F

66 Object of the Book of Koheleth.

subject of the Book of Job. But the difficulty still remained.
It. was deeply felt in the days in which Koheleth poured
forth his bitter complaints. For, if that writer lived after the
return from captivity, it was only natural that he and his
fellow-believers should have felt perplexed at the fact that,
notwithstanding the restoration of Israel to their own land,
days of prosperity had not dawned upon the chosen people.
Some of his fellows had gone over: to the ranks of the
sceptics; a still larger number, perhaps, were "murmurers”
against the dispensations of Providence. Hope deferred had
made many hearts sick. It was verily a time when some
divinely inspired teacher was needed to strengthen and
confirm the faithful in Israel.

Though sympathising deeply with the difficulties in which
such persons were placed, Koheleth, the philosophic prophet
or preacher, urged upon the “murmurers” the duty of con-
tentment. That there was darkness around their path he
did not venture to deny ; but there was also; he argued, much
to console them amid that darkness, and no man ought
sullenly to refuse to enjoy the good things God has provided
for him even in this life. If the question “Wherefore doth
the way of the wicked prosper?” could not be answered, not
even by a prophet in Israel—for the day for manifesting that
“mystery,” and for revealing that secret had not yet come—
those who believed in God should at least learn to receive
with thankfulness the common gifts freely bestowed upon
mankind ; and, by enjoying the blessings which they actually
possessed, to make the best use of the short span of existence
appointed to man on carth (Koh. iii. 13; v. 18).

Such was at least one of the objects for which the Book
of Koheleth was written. But the difficulties expressed in
that book in regard to God's dealings with man did not
diminish in number, as the dreary ages rolled on during
which the Gentile power continued more or less heavily to

Object of the Book of Wisdom. 07

oppress the once-favoured Israel. The charm of Greek litera-
ture began to be appreciated after the days of the Maccabean
heroes, the once-detested Greek philosophy made its way
into Jewish schools, and Greek manners began to corrupt
the simplicity of the Jewish national life. In place of the
“murmurers” who existed in the days of Koheleth, a race
of “blasphemers” sprang up in the days of the writer of
the Book of Wisdom. The Jewish free-thinkers of Alex-
andria dared to defend their obnoxious tenets by arguments
derived from the Book of Koheleth’ itself. They boldly
propounded materialistic opinions, they denied a future state
of existence, and even went so far as to persecute those
who opposed their pernicious views. These daring spirits
advocated the full enjoyment of all the pleasures of sense,
and defended their actions and principles on the plea that
Solomon, the very impersonation of wisdom, had declared
himself on their side; for he had demonstrated human life
to be but vanity, and had advised men to enjoy earthly
pleasures, while time remained for such enjoyment.

It need not, therefore, surprise us if some of the statements
put forth by the writer of the Book of Wisdom appear to be
almost direct contradictions of those found in the Book of
Ecclesiastes. The young scoffers of Alexandria had based
their arguments upon certain positions taken up in the latter
book. The writer of the Book of Wisdom denies many of
the statements of Koheleth, that is, as interpreted by the
adversaries of true religion. The ‘verbal similarities which
exist between the expressions of the adversaries of religion
and morality as set forth in the second chapter of the Book
of Wisdom, and the expressions which actually occur in the
Book of Koheleth, are most remarkable.

Thus, the materialistic free-thinkers of that day are de-
scribed as asserting that life is short and troublesome
(λυπηρός), Wisdom ii, 1, in conformity with the statement

68 The Free-thinkers of Alexandria.

in Koheleth: “All his days are sorrows and his travail
grief” (Koh. ii. 23; so also v. 16, 17). They laid stress
upon the fact that there is no deliverance from death
(Wisdom ii. 2, 3, 5), a fact repeatedly alluded to by the
Preacher (Koh. viii. 8; iii, 2, 18, 21) as one of those par-
ticulars which tend to lower man to the level of the brute
creation. These materialists further asserted that men were
born accidentally, by chance (αὐτοσχεδίως),} echoing, though
in different phraseology, the thought which occurs several
times in Koheleth, “the children of men are a chance” (Koh.
iii. 19), “time and accident happen to them all” (Koh. ix.
11). It is of small advantage, said they, to seek to leave
a good name behind us, “for our name shall in time be
forgotten, and no one will remember our works” (Wisdom
ii. 4). Compare this with the statements of Koheleth, “there
is no remembrance of former things, neither shall there be
a remembrance of things that are to come” (Koh. i. 11),
“the fool and the wise man shall be alike forgotten (Koh.
ii. 16), for “the memory of the dead is forgotten” (Koh. ix. 5).
Life, these Jewish Alexandrians asserted truly, is a shadow
(Wisdom ii. 5, comp. v. 9), a comparison also taken from

1 αὐτοσχεδίως is explained by Schleusner to mean, ‘‘casu, sine Dei consilio et
providentia.” The rendering of the Vulgate is incorrect, ex 7/0. Deane renders
it “at all adventure,” and explains it as meaning ‘‘ off-hand, at hap-hazard.”
For this English rendering he refers to the marginal rendering of Lev. xxvi. 21,
and Shakespeare, Comedy of Errors, ii. 2. A manuscript glossary on the book
quoted by Schleusner explains it as ἐκ τοῦ παρατυχόντος, ταχέως, ἐκ τοῦ παραυτίκα
παραχρῆμα, αὐτόματα. Tesych. explains αὐτοσχεδίως by αὐτομάτως. Grimm gives
our translation ‘* durch Zufall,” and notes that the sentence contains an allusion
to the Epicurean doctrine according to which all appearances of nature owe their
origin to chance ; and refers to Ritter, Gesch. d. Philosophie, vol. iii. p. 395. He
also quotes Lactant. Justt., ii. i, 2, ‘Shomines . . ne se, ut quidam
philosophi faciunt, tantopere despiciant, neve se infirmos et supervacuos et frustra
omnino zazos putent, que opinio plerosque ad vitia compellit,” and also Cre. Tuse.
1, 49, ‘Non demere nec fortuzto sati et creati sumus,. sed profecto fuit vis quaedam,
que consuleret generi humano ; nec id gigneret aut aleret, quod, quum exan-
clavisset omnes labores, tum incideret in mortis malum sempiternum ; portum
potius paratum nobis et perfugium putemus.”

Thew false interpretation of Koheleth. 69

Koheleth (Koh. vi. 12; viii. 13). Hence, argued they, men
ought to seek to compensate themselves for the sad circum-
stances under which they are placed by giving themselves
up as far as possible, without any unnecessary restraint, to
a life of pleasure.

There is a similarity between Koheleth’s advice to make
use of the innocent joys of life (Koh. ix. 7-9), and the ex-
hortation of the free-thinkers in the Book of Wisdom, to
enjoy the pleasures of sin in their season.

“Go, eat with joy thy bread,

And drink with joyful heart thy wine,

For long ago God hath approved thy works.

At all times let thy garments be white !

And let not oil on thy head be wanting !

Enjoy life with a wife whom thou lovest,

All the days of thy life of vanity

Which he hath given to thee under the sun,
All the days of thy vanity,

For this is thy portion in life

And in thy toil with which thou toilest under the sun.”

Should this advice of Koheleth appear somewhat Epi-
curean, its real character will be better seen by contrasting
it with the exhortation of the ungodly depicted in the Book
of Wisdom; that exhortation being evidently the interpreta-
tion or misinterpretation put upon the words of Koheleth by
the sensualists of Alexandria.

“ Come therefore and let us enjoy the good things present 2
And let us eagerly make use of the world4 as long as we are young.

1 Koheleth nowhere gives any encouragement toa life of dissipation, though
he frequently urges on men the use of the natural pleasures presented to them in
this life. See Koh. iii. 12, 22; v. 17, 18 (E.V. v. 18, 19) ; viii. 15; xi. 19, and
our remarks on the latter verse in chap. viii.

3 The phrase τῶν ὄντων ἀγαθῶν means actual good things in opposition to such
ideal blessings as piety, virtue and wisdom, and things which are in existence at
the present time and not merely expected in a future state of being.

3 So Grimm translates the clause καὶ χρησώμεθα τῇ κτίσει ὡς νεότητι σπουδαίως.
Deane renders ‘‘let us use the creatures like as in youth,” but we prefer Grimm’s

70 Contradictions between the Book of

With costly wine and unguents let us fill ourselves,

And let no flower of spring pass by us,

Let us crown ourselves with buds of roses before they wither,
[Let there be no mead though which our luxury does not pass,] !
Let not one of us be without a share of our wantonness,
Everywhere let us leave behind us signs of our joyousness,?

For this is our portion, and this our lot.” ᾿
Wisdom ii. 6-10.

It can scarcely escape notice, that the last words of this
passage re-echo an expression which occurs several times in
the Book of Ecclesiastes (ii. 10; iii. 22; v. 18 ; 1x. 9).

Strange it is in face of such clear proofs (even if no others
could be adduced), that Hitzig, who sought to prove that
Koheleth was a book of a later age than the Book of Wisdom,
should have ventured to assert that “for many reasons ’—
reasons be it observed which the learned critic has nowhere
given in detail—the reference to Koheleth in this passage of
the Book of Wisdom is “in the highest degree improbable.” ὃ

Such are a few of the more striking of those passages in
the Book of Wisdom which were evidently directed against
a one-sided and too-literal interpretation of the language of
the Book of Ecclesiastes.* The stern condemnation of the

rendering, which is also adopted by Bissell. τῇ κτίσει, the creation is used in the
sense of created things, the world, as in Rom. viii. 19, 20; Heb. iv. 132. On the
readings of the passage, see Grimm and Bissell.

1 This addition is found in the Vulgate, “nullum pratum sit quod non per-
transeat Iuxuria nostra.” It is accepted as genuine by Grimm and Bissell, and
Deane remarks, ‘‘it is true that nothing to correspond with this clause is found
in any existing Greek MS., but a clause parallel to the first half of the verse is
required, if we regard the careful balancing of periods exhibited in the rest of the
paragraph.”

2 Or joyfulness, d-yepwxlas. Deane observes, ‘‘this word in classical Greek
means insolence, haughtiness. Here, unrestrained voluptuousness, insolentia in
luxurie viteeque mollitie conspicua, Wah Clav. Comp. 2 Macc. ix. 7; 3 Mace.
Als ἄν

ἘΠῚ Der Prediger Salomo’s, p. 121 in the Aurzgef. exevet. Handb. sum
AT,

4 Dean Plumptre has in his Introduction to his Come. on Ecclesiastes, pp. 71 ff,
given other examples, with some of which we are unable to coincide. See our comm.
on Koh, ix. 9, and our remarks in chap. viii. on Koh. xi. 9. But the following in-

Koheleth and the Book of Wisdom. ai

young free-thinkers of Alexandria which follows the passage
already cited was perhaps the more scathing, as it was
represented to come from the lips of Solomon, whom they
falsely quoted as having given judgment on their side.

There are, moreover, other passages in which the writer of
this apocryphal book was not at all backward to express his
opinion in language which savours of the spirit of contradic-
tion to the Book of Koheleth, although it may be maintained
that there is no more real contradiction between the
apparently opposing statements when compared with one
another, than actually exists between several passages of the
Book of Ecclesiastes itself.

Thus, if Koheleth affirms (ix. 2) “all things come to all
alike, one chance happens to the righteous and the wicked, to
the good, and to the clean and unclean,” the writer of the
Book of Wisdom maintains “the souls of the righteous are in
the hand of God, and no torment shall touch them. In the
eyes of the unwise they seemed to die, and their departure
is reckoned a misfortune, and their going from us destruction,
but they are in peace” (Wisdom iii. 2, 3). In contrast with
the ungodly, who are likened to dust blown away before the
wind, to fine frost driven away by the whirlwind, to smoke
dispersed by the storm, “the righteous” are said by him to
“live for ever,” “and their reward is with the Lord, and the
care of them is with the Most High” (Wisdom v. 14, 15).

Koheleth asserts (i. 18) “In much wisdom is much grief,

stances may here be quoted :—‘‘ to the ever-recurring complaint that all things are
‘vanity and feeding upon wind,’ (Eccles, i. 14, 173 ii. 26, ef a/.) he [the author of
the Book of Wisdom] opposes the teaching that. ‘murmuring is unprofitable’
(Wisd. i. 11). The thought that death was better than life, to be desired as an
everlasting sleep (Eccl. vi. 4, 5), [we dispute the correctness of this interpretation,
see our comm,], he meets with the warning, ‘seek not death in the error of your
life’ (Wisd. i. 12) ; and ventures even on the assertion that ‘ God made not death,’
that it was an Enemy that had done this, that life and not death was contemplated
in the Divine purpose as the end of man (Wisd. i.13). It was only the ungodly
who counted death their friend (Wisd. i. 16).”

5

72 Importance of the Book of ΠΡ ραν».

and he that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow” ; but
the writer of the apocryphal book says of wisdom, “con-
versation with her hath no bitterness, and to live with her
hath no sorrow, but mirth and joy” (viii. 16). Solomon, in the
Book of Koheleth, complains that wisdom does not bring
bread to the wise, that riches do not fall to the lot of the
understanding, nor favour to the knowing (ix. 11); while, in
the Book of Wisdom, he is described as saying, through wis-
dom “T shall have honour (δόξαν) among the multitudes, and
veneration (τιμήν), though young, among the elders” (viii. 10).
According to the Book of Ecclesiastes, there is no remem-
brance after death of the wise man any more than of the
fool (ii. 16); in the Book of Wisdom, Solomon asserts “I
shall have by her (wisdom) immortality, and I shall leave
an everlasting remembrance to those after me” (viii. 13).

It is unnecessary to do more than mention the remark-
able contrast before alluded to between the retrospect of
Solomon’s career given in Ecclesiastes i. and ii. and that pre-
sented in Wisdom vii.-ix. In the former the great monarch
is represented as seeking to obtain satisfaction not only by
following after noble ends, but also by following on every
side after sensual pleasures, and to be: from first to last dis-
satisfied with the result of his endeavours. Throughout the
latter Solomon is described as an ardent seeker after wisdom,
and a veil is drawn over the dark traits of his character.

The Book of Wisdom was a valuable contribution to theo-
logical literature at the time in which it appeared. The noble
ideas expressed in it concerning the Divine Being, its fre-
quent mention of love and charity, were peculiarly important.
The writer manifests throughout a sympathy for man as
man, and he exhibits also a firm belief in the Divine mission
of Israel, although that people is not once mentioned by
name in his book. The clear enunciation of the doctrine of
a life beyond the grave, of future rewards and punishments,

Supplied a gap in the Jewish Creed. 73

and of the immortality of the righteous, though the doctrine
of the “resurrection” was hidden from his eyes, tends to
invest the book with a special interest.! In its grasp of these
verities the work occupies a higher standpoint than the Book
of Ecclesiastes. It does not ignore the fact that “there are
righteous who perish by their righteousness, and there are
evil men who protract their lives by their wickedness” (Koh.
vii. 15). But, in the light of the doctrine of future retribution,
so prominently taught on its pages, the recognition of such a
difficulty does not cast that heavy pall of gloom over the
spirit which oppresses us in perusing the pages of the Book
of Koheleth. Nor does the writer of the Book of Wisdom
forget to emphasise the truth that the punishment of the
ungodly is not always reserved for another world, and that
God’s anger frequently breaks out against the wicked even
on this side of the grave (iii. 11 ff., iv. 3-6, etc). This truth
is. exhibited in the closing chapters, where an account—dis-
figured indeed in many places by needless and occasionally
even absurd exaggerations—is given of the plagues poured
upon the land of Egypt in the days of Moses, and of the
marvellous exemption vouchsafed on. that occasion to the
people of Israel.

The Book of Wisdom, therefore, supplied an important
gap in the creed of the Jewish Church. It guarded many
a Greek-speaking Jew from errors, which either were di-
rectly founded on a narrow and over-literal interpretation
of the Book of Koheleth, or indirectly drew a portion of their
support therefrom. It brought into fuller light certain im-
portant doctrines, which in the Book of Ecclesiastes are dis-
coverable only in the germ. In respect to the doctrine of
the resurrection, the Book of Wisdom has fallen short of the

1 On this subject compare Dr. Aug. Wiinsche, Die Vorstellungen vom Zustande
nach dem Tode nach Apokryphen, Talmud, und Kirchenvitern, in the Jahrbiicher
fir protest. Theologie, Band vi. 1880, pp. 355-383 and 495-523.

74. Phrases tu N. 7. borrowed from Wesdom.

standard reached in the Book of Daniel. But it retains
throughout a firm grasp of “the hope full of immortality.”
Many of the peculiar terms and phrases employed in it,
such as “Holy Spirit," “only begotten,” “fatherhood of
God,” “philanthropy,” and “love,” reappear in a higher
sense in the New Testament. As Deane notes, “allusions
to its phraseology are frequent in St. Paul’s Epistles, That
noble passage in the fifth chapter of Wisdom seems to be
the groundwork of the grand description of the Christian’s
armour in Ephesians (vi. 13-17), ‘He shall take to Him
His jealousy for complete armour’ λήψεται πανοπλίαν:
‘take unto you the whole armour of God, ἀναλάβετε τὴν
πανοπλίαν τοῦ Θεοῦ. ‘He shall put on righteousness as
a breastplate, ἐνδύσεται θώρακα δικαιοσύνην : ‘Having on
the breastplate of righteousness, ἐνδυσώμενοι tov θώρακα
τῆς δικαιοσύνης. ‘And true judgment instead of a helmet.
He shall take holiness for an invincible shield’; ‘above
all taking the shield of faith . . . and take the helmet
of salvation.” The passage too about the potter in Romans
ix. is an echo of a similar sentiment in Wisdom xv.” The
language of Hebrews i. 3 is partially identical with that of
Wisdom vii. 26 ; and many other instances are cited by Deane
and others! Of course, the use of the phraseology found in
the Book of Wisdom is far from being equivalent to direct
quotations from that book. These occur nowhere in the New
Testament Scriptures. But in these and many other par-
ticulars the Book of Wisdom may well be viewed as a bright
harbinger of the more glorious gospel revealed by our Lord
and His apostles. Ifthe Book of Koheleth must be regarded
in some respects as the last piercing cry of the Old Testa-
ment dispensation for “light, light,” the Book of Wisdom
not merely re-echoes that cry, but partly answers it, marred

1 See Deane’s Prolegomena to his edition of the Book of Wisdom, chap. v.
Pp. 35 ff.

The Description of the Righteous Man. 75

though the work be, in some places, by the inspirations of the
Greek philosophy. Only one great Teacher, the Son of Man
and Son of God, the Light and the Life of men, was able to
shed a new and a true light upon the dark problems touched
upon in the Book of Ecclesiastes, In His blessed light may
we see light!

Throughout the apocryphal work, “wisdom” is com-
mended as the true guide to a blissful immortality, and
the conditions are laid down under which alone man can
obtain possession of that Divine gift (chaps. i-iv.), The
Divine character of wisdom, and its mode of operation in
enlightening the intellect and directing the life of man, are
described in the second section, which closes with Solomon's
prayer for wisdom (chaps. vi-ix.). The bencficial result of
wisdom in early Israelitish history is described in what
appears at least at first sight to be a continuation of that
prayer, which is so protracted as at last to become unnatural
and tedious (chaps. x—xix.). Some places in that description
are occasionally obscure, owing to the artificial plan of the
writer, which is consistently maintained throughout, of omit-
ting all mention of proper names. The writer speaks of
all men under the designation of the godly and ungodly,
although he relates the histories of Adam, Enoch, Noah,
Abraham, Lot, Jacob, Joseph, Moses, Israel in Egypt, and
many incidents in the life of Solomon.

It was but natural that the Christian Fathers should re-
gard the beautiful description of the righteous man in chap. ii.
12-20, as a prophecy of the life and. sufferings, the death
and exaltation of the only-begotten Son of God. When
that passage, however, is submitted to a closer examination,
it is manifest that the writer is there speaking of the
righteous as a class, and not of any single individual! But
the picture there presented of the righteous man bold in his

1 See note, on p. 59.

76 <1 Preparation for Christianity.

reproof of sin in every form, even when cherished in the
hidden recesses of the soul, of his sufferings on account of
his testimony against evil, and of his being put to death by
his foes, must recall vividly to our minds the Righteous Martyr
in whom the writer’s ideal was more than realized, The ideal
of the Book of Wisdom is a grand one, though the pas-
sage cannot be compared for beauty or force with the still
grander prophecy of Isaiah liii, where the Righteous Servant
of Jahaveh is represented as atoning by his sufferings, not
for his own sins, but for the sins of the people.

The Book of Koheleth, in its exhibition of the darkness
of the old dispensation, and the Book of Wisdom in its
anticipations of New Testament light, were both prepara-
tions for the better revelation of Jesus Christ. We may
safely endorse the beautiful remarks of Ewald concerning
the Book of Wisdom: “but for such books there are many
things which it would be difficult to comprehend in a Paul,
a John and their contemporaries. In the nervous energy
of his proverbial style, and in the depth of his representa-
tion we have a premonition of John, and in his conception
of heathenism a preparation for Paul, like a warm rustle of
the spring ere its time is fully come?

1 Ewald, Ais¢., p. 484, vol. v. (Engl. Ed.), Gesch. des Volkes Isr, Band iv. 3te
Ausg. 1864, p. 632.

CHAPTER IV.

THE AUTHORSHIP OF THE BOOK OF KOHELETH.

77

CHAPTER IV.

Summary of preceding chapters, 79—The authorship of the Book of Koheleth,
80— Earliest doubts as to its Solomonic authorship, 80—Traces of hesitation
even in early times, 81—Koheleth a title of Solomon, 82——The name not chosen
to conceal the writer, 83—~—Meaning of the title, 84—Solomon a preacher, 85
—The name no evidence of authorship, 85—Mr. Johnston’s argument on this
point, 86—Reasons assigned by Bloch for the use of the name, 87—Significance
of phrase, ‘‘King in Jerusalem,” 88—Attempts to explain it away, 8§g7—Solomon
redivivus, 90>-—Legend of Talmud, 91—Meaning ‘‘I was king,” 91—Other at-
tempts to explain the perfect tense, 92—The predecessors of Solomon, 94—
Historical accuracy not aimed at, 95—Attempt of early translators to evade the
force of the passage, 95 The Masoretic reading of the passage, 96—The epilogue
of the work, 97—Opinions of Krochmal and Fiirst, 97—Of Graetz, 98—Bloch’s
modification of Krochmal’s view, 99—The view of M. Renan, 100—Koheleth
and the Koheleth, tor—The three points of the: epilogue, t1oo—Disavowal of
Solomonic authorship, 102—Views of Ewald and Delitzsch as to epilogue, 102
—‘‘ Masters of collections,” 103—The words of the wise, 103—The inspiration
of the Sacred Writings affirmed by the writer, 104—The warning how to learn,
105—The announcement of a coming judgment, 106.

CHAPTER IV:
THE AUTHORSHIP OF THE BOOK OF KOHELETH.

IN our first chapter we endeavoured to show that it is
probable that the Book of Koheleth or Ecclesiastes was
admitted into the Jewish Canon by “the men of the Great
Synagogue,” who flourished between B.C. 444 and B.C. 196,
The fact of disputes having taken place on the question
of the canonicity of the book between the rival schools of
Hillel and Shammai, some thirty or forty years before the
Christian era, is quite consistent with the theory that long
prior to that date it was regarded as one of the books of
Sacred Scripture. We also pointed out that Graetz’s theory
of the composition of the work in the days of Herod the
Great is untenable, being contrary to the following facts,
(1) That the Book of the Wisdom of Jesus the Son of Sirach,
or Ben Sira, written in Palestine, in Hebrew or Aramaic,
at latest about B.C. 180, contains many passages which
show an intimate acquaintance with the Book of Koheleth.
(2) That the Greek work entitled The Wisdom of Solo-
mon, composed in Egypt about B.c. 150, was designed
specially to counteract the false opinions propounded by
the Jewish sensualists of Alexandria, and professedly based
by them on statements which occur in the Book of Eccle-
siastes. (3) That a translation of the Book of Koheleth
formed part and parcel of the LXX. version of the Jewish
Scriptures, and that, therefore, the book must have been in
existence prior to the second century before Christ. And
(4) lastly, that the Talmud contains direct proofs that the

ao

80 The Arthorship of the Book of Koheleth.

Book of Koheleth was actually quoted as Sacred Scripture,
on a par with the Law of Moses, in the days of Herod
the Great, and even by the great Jewish teachers who
flourished before that period, and consequently must have
been looked upon as canonical long prior to that era.

In discussing the question (treated of in our last chapter)
of the relation which subsists between the Book of Kohe-
leth and the Book of Wisdom, we pointed out that the
writer of the latter did not scruple to put forth his work,
which contained profitable doctrine most necessary for the
time at which it appeared, under the name of Solomon;
but that in so doing the author had not the slightest idea
of. committing any fraud whatever, but simply sought to
assert in the strongest manner possible that the views
he advocated, in direct opposition to. the Jewish sensualist
school of Alexandria, were in full accordance with the
utterances of that heavenly wisdom which had been bestowed
upon the great Solomon,

We come now to consider more particularly the question
of the authorship of the Book of Koheleth. It must be
conceded at the very outset that no.distinct evidence can
be adduced of any doubts having been expressed as to the
Sdlomonic authorship of the book earlier than the period
of the Reformation. Nay more, if our theory respecting the
object and aim of the Book of the Wisdom of Solomon be
correct, a further concession must be made, namely, that the
Book of Koheleth, known to the Alexandrian Jews through
the medium of the Greek translation of the LXX., was re-
garded by them at that early period as a veritable production
of the great monarch of Israel. This, however, is no more
than might be expected under the circumstances of the case
in that uncritical age, especially if it be borne in mind that
the book was not generally studied by the Alexandrian Jews
in its original language. But the fact remains that Luther,

The Sayings of the Midrashim. 81

in his Table Talt, was the first who ventured distinctly to
deny the Solomonic authorship of the work; and the great
Dutch scholar, Hugo Grotius, more than a century later, was.
the first who ventured to assign critical arguments (not, it
must be acknowledged, of the most cogent character) in>
support of that novel opinion.t

But, although the judgment of antiquity in favour of the:
Solomonic authorship of Ecclesiastes, as far as we possess .
distinct evidence, appears to have been unanimous, it is to:
be noted that certain sayings handed down in the Midrashim
exhibit traces of hesitation on this very point. Again and’
again one encounters in these early commentaries (which, .
in spite of Dean Plumptre’s unfavourable opinion,* are by no.
means to be despised as worthless) the distinct assertion that
“while Solomon taught the Law the Holy Spirit descended
upon him, and he composed the three books, Proverbs, Song
of Songs, and Koheleth.”* In the same place Solomon is
represented as one who in his lifetime had experience of
three worlds, having been “a king, a private person, and
again a king;” or, as it is otherwise expressed, having been
in succession “a wise man, a fool, and again wise.”* Such
sayings are probably based upon the legend preserved in
the Targum, according to which Solomon, after he had
provoked God to anger by his foreign marriages, was driven
from his throne, and went through the towns and cities of
Israel as a preacher, everywhere lamenting his own folly,

1 See Luther’s [Verke, Erlangen Ausg. vol, Ixii. p. 128. He affirmed the same
opinion in the preface to his German translation of the work in 1524 but in his
Latin Comm., issued in 1532, he has adopted the traditional view. See his Exeg.
Operi Lat. vol. xxi. ed. Irmischer & Schmidt, 1858.

2 One will often find that what seems to be childish has u deeper signification
than at first sight appears, The trivialities, or as Dean Plumptre calls them, ‘‘the
insanities,” of the old Jewish expositors can be paralleled by similar quotations
from the Patristic writers, and even from the works of commentators of later date
who ought to have been better instructed.

3 Midrash Shir ha-shirim, i, 1.

4 See p. 76.

82 Koheleth used as a title of Solomon.

and reproving sin, crying out, “I am Koheleth, whose name
was formerly called Solomon, who was king over Israel in
Jerusalem.”! This legend, which in later times assumed
yet stranger forms, does not appear to have been originally
intended to set forth an historical fact, but rather to be an
allegory, illustrating the truth that the career of Solomon was
a remarkable example on the one hand of the glory and
honour attained by pursuing the path of wisdom, and on
the other of the ruin and disgrace which result from following
the way of folly. For, inasmuch as the story of that great
monarch’s transgression and fall is replete with lessons of
wisdom, Solomon, “though dead yet speaketh,” and utters in
the Book of Koheleth lessons and words of wisdom, whether
the book be an actual production of Solomon’s pen, or the
work of another author, who adduces that king as the most
remarkable example of the vanity of all earthly things.

There have not, indeed, been wanting scholars who have
had the hardiness to deny that the name of Koheleth was
intended as a designation of Solomon.? A similar assertion,
just as groundless, has been made with respect to the Book
of Wisdom (see p. 60). Neither the one statement nor the
other can for a moment be defended unless by persons
either ignorant of facts or fond of paradoxes.

The record of the acts of Koheleth, the son of David,
set forth in chap. ii., and the description given there of his
wisdom, prove beyond all reasonable doubt that no other
person can be meant by the name Koheleth than the world-
renowned Solomon.

1 See p. 91.

2 Nachman Krochmal, in his AMfore Neboche ha-zeman (i.e. Director errantium
nostree statis), published after the author's death by L. (Leopold) Zunz (Lemberg,
1851), as cited by Delitzsch, maintained that the name Koheleth was the
designation of some descendant of David, who acted probably as governor of
Jerusalem in the times of the Persian domination ; and hence the expression used
in chap. i. 12, ‘‘ Koheleth, the son of David, who was king in Jerusalem.”

Not designed to conceal the real Author. 83

There are, however, passages to be found in the Book of
Koheleth itself in which the author lifts up his visor in such a
manner as to show the intelligent reader that the character
and name of Solomon were simply assumed, not for any pur-
pose of deception, nor as “a pious fraud,” but by a perfectly
allowable literary device.

Hengstenberg, indeed, has gone too far when he asserts
that the name of Koheleth was affixed to the work to indi-
cate that it was not intended to be regarded as Solomon’s.
For, argues Hengstenberg, the proper name of Solomon is
prefixed to all his genuine writings. But the induction of
particulars is too small to permit of any such conclusion
being arrived at with safety. The use of the name Koheleth
in itself is of no real significance in deciding the disputed
question of the authorship of the work:

The name Koheleth could not possibly have been made
use of for the purpose of concealment. For, if Solomon had
been really the writer, no assumption of a fictitious name
could for one moment have rendered the authorship uncer-
tain, as his acts and wisdom are so plainly spoken of in the
first two chapters of the book. On the other hand, if that
monarch is referred to merely as the highest impersonation
of wisdom, he would have been more fitly brought forward in
that character under the world-renowned name of Solomon,
which in process of time became a synonym of wisdom
itself. Even were the assumption of a Solomonic authorship
to be regarded as a “pious fraud,” one can scarcely under-
stand what object a writer could have had in view in
designating Solomon by a title not by any means easy of
comprehension, instead of referring to him by the ordinary
name by which that great king of Israel was universally
known,

This is not the place in which to give a sketch of the
various interpretations proposed for the title Koheleth, by

84 Meaning of the term Koheleth.

which Solomon is uniformly characterised in this book of
Scripture, and in no other! The matter cannot, however,
here be altogether passed over in silence. The word
Koheleth (nbmp) is, by no means so enigmatical as Renan
has asserted it to be. It is properly speaking a second form
of the feminine of the active participle of the first conju-
gation of the verb kahal OP), used, however, in a neuter
signification. Nouns of this particular form are often applied
to individuals without regard to gender, to indicate that such
persons are to a high degree possessors of the special form
of activity expressed by the verb. Hence Koheleth signifies
“a preacher” without any reference to the gender of the indi-
vidual; and the term has been thus explained by the LXX,,
the Vulg., and the earliest expositors, as well as by our A.V.
The use of nouns of that form as proper names of men
belongs probably to a late stage of the Hebrew language.”
In the present case the feminine has been supposed by Ewald,
Hitzig, Ginsburg and others, to indicate Solomon as the
personification of wisdom. This explanation is not, however,
justified by the contents of the book. The writer nowhere
brings forward Wisdom addressing men as in the Book of
Proverbs. Solomon is not depicted in the Book of Eccle-
siastes, as in the Book of Proverbs, in the character of a
teacher who regards his readers as “children,” “sons,” or
pupils. The single instance of this usage in the Book of
Ecclesiastes (xii. 12) is only an apparent but not a real
exception, In the character of personified wisdom Solomon
could not have spoken of himself as having gotten more
wisdom than all before him in Jerusalem, or be described
as relating how his heart had great experience of wisdom
(chap. i. 16-18), or how he had applied his heart to discover
by means of wisdom certain things (chap. vii. 23).

The verb Oop) from whence the name Koheleth is derived,

1 See our Crit. Comm. 2 See our Crit. Comm.

fTistorical fact on which the title ἐς based. 85

signifies zo call, to call together, for the purposes of as-
sembling, The noun signifies a “speaker” or “preacher”
before an assembly convened for religious purposes, rather
than a “convener” or “assembler.” The historical fact
which gave rise to the name was most likely that spoken
of in 1 Kings viii. 55-61, where the historian records that
Solomon gathered all Israel together (1 Kings viii. 1, comp.
verse 65) for the consecration of the temple. On that occasion
Solomon preached, as Delitzsch has rightly observed, to the
people indirectly in the remarkable prayer which he then
poured forth, and directly when he afterwards blessed them
and exhorted them to continue faithful to the Lord God
of Israel (1 Kings viii. 55-61).

Although the discourse delivered by Solomon before that
great assembly in Jerusalem was probably the special reason
which led the author of the book before us to designate
Solomon by the peculiar name of Koheleth, it is to be
observed that no other allusion whatever is made in the book
to that “crowning period” in that king’s history. In the
Book of Koheleth Solomon is not represented as one who
preached to assembled Israel at a great crisis in the nation’s
history ; nor, indeed, is he introduced as addressing specially
the Israelitish nation. He is represented rather as a preacher
teaching mankind in general lessons drawn from his own
personal experience, which led him to the mortifying con-
clusion that “all is but vanity and vexation of spirit.” Hence
the name Koheleth so far from being, as Mr. Johnston
considers it, “intrinsic evidence of Solomon’s authorship,” is
quite the reverse. Solomon once “ preached” to the people.
Then he was “ἃ wise man,” “a rich man,” and “aking.” In
the Book of Koheleth he speaks as “a poor man,” who once
indeed had been rich, but for whom riches no longer had any

34 Treatise on the Authorship of Ecclesiastes, Macmillan & Co., 1880. p. 119.
See our remarks on p. 114.

86 The title no proof of Solomonic Authorship.

charms, Though endued with the gift of wisdom above all
who preceded him, he narrates how he had acted like a fool,
and had thus learned the vanity and vexation even of
earthly wisdom. He speaks, indeed, δ." ἃ wise man,” but as
one who had learned wisdom by experience, and had “come
to himself,” after having been first guilty of extreme folly.
He speaks, too, no longer as “a king,” but as one who had
sat upon the throne in days gone by, and now sought to
rule his fellow-men only by pointing out to them the Icssons
which he had learned by experience. The remark of Rabbi
Judan and Rabbi Onyah, already quoted from the Midrash, is
more profound than it appears at first sight to be. Solomon
was “a king, a private person, and a king—a wise man, a
fool, and a wise man—a rich man, a poor man, and a rich
man.” Rabbi Judan quotes in proof of this the words of
Koheleth: “all have I seen in the days of my vanity,”
(chap. vii. 1§),and observes, “a man reflects on his punishment
(PVT PIN=THv ἀνάγκην αὐτοῦ) only in the hour of his
enlargement.” Rabbi Onyah cites as his proof simply the
text: “I, Koheleth, was king over Jerusalem ”+ (chap. i. 12).
It is strange that Mr. Johnston did not perceive that
the instances he has given (in p. 336 of his 7reatise) cannot
possibly be regarded as evidence in favour of the Solomonic
authorship. He calls attention to the fact that “in con-
trasting a poor and wise child with an old and foolish king,
Koheleth represents the child as standing up in the king’s
stead, adding: ‘there is no end of all the people’” (chap.
iv. 16). This statement, Mr. Johnston maintains, coincides
remarkably with the expressions used by Solomon in his
prayer at Gibeon in reference to the vast numbers of the
people over whom that monarch was called to reign (1 Kings
iii..7, 8), and also with the narrative of 1 Kings, in which the
crowds are spoken of who hailed with acclamations his
See p. 90.

Reasons assigned for tts use. 87

accession tothe throne. This critic regards it as “a peculiarly
interesting circumstance” that the only other place in which
mention is made of the “people” (DY) in the Book of Ec-
clesiastes is in chap. xii. 9, ‘and moreover, because Koheleth
was wise, he still taught the people knowledge.” From an
array of such statements Mr. Johnston seeks to derive an
argument in favour of the Solomonic authorship of the book.
But he seems to forget that even if it be granted that there
is a connexion between the two passages, all that can pos-
sibly be proved from such trifling coincidences is, that the
writer of the Book of Ecclesiastes was well acquainted with
the incidents of Solomon's life which are recorded in the
Sacred Writings, and that his book: contains allusions to
those incidents.

Bloch, in his able defence of the Solomonic authorship of
Ecclesiastes, seeks to account in another manner for Solo-
mon’s styling himself by a different name than that by which
he designated himself as the author of the Book of Proverbs
and the Song of Songs. He maintains that it was becoming
that the writer of the Book of Ecclesiastes should assume a
name different from that by which he was ordinarily known.
The glorious name of Solomon would have presented too
glaring a contrast to the character of Koheleth. It would
have been unsuitable to have prefixed to such a book the proud
name of Solomon, the wisest among men, the prince of peace,
the king of Israel, who ruled over a territory larger than that
governed by his warlike sire, and vastly greater than that
of any of his successors. For the Book of Ecclesiastes pro-
nounces all his might, majesty, and wisdom to be but vanity.
Hence, according to Bloch, in the Book of Koheleth Solomon
sought as far as possible to assume the place of a private
individual, who, though he had been a king, wished to be
regarded in the light of an ordinary man addressing his
fellow-mortals. Solomon had had full experience of the

88 Why Solomon ἐς called Koheteth.

bitterness of life; and, in consequence of the extensive know-
ledge of men and things which he possessed, might well
be justified in regarding his own experience as typical of
that of mankind in general. If, therefore, in the course of
his philosophical lamentations he speaks of himself as a king,
-and as a wise man, it is only to prove that he was thoroughly
acquainted with the matters of which he treats. For he
knew better than any other man the vanity of all earthly
_ things.

The reason assigned by Bloch for the use of the name
Koheleth is ingenious. But, if it were well-founded, it would
afford a strong argument against the Solomonic authorship
of the book. Such considerations might have great weight
in the eyes of a writer of a later date than Solomon, but
it would scarcely have had any in the case of Solomon
himself. It is highly probable that the real reason why
‘Solomon is termed in the book by the name of Koheleth is
that he is represented throughout as one who, not only by his
teaching, but in a greater degree by the incidents of his in-
dividual career, demonstrated the vanity of all human efforts
to attain real satisfaction. The experience of a Solomon
proves distinctly that the certainty of death on the one hand,
and the uncertainty attending all human efforts on the other,
must necessarily cast a dark shadow over the path even of
the most favourably situated, and of the wisest of mankind.
If such persons are forced to exclaim, “all is vanity,” much
more must ordinary mortals be driven to the same con-
clusion.

Koheleth is represented as “king in Jerusalem” (chap. i.
1), and “king over Israel in Jerusalem” (chap. 1. 12). The
phrase “king in Jerusalem” occurs nowhere else in the
Sacred Writings. The phrase “ reigned in Jerusalem ” occurs
often. It is used of David when his reign in Jerusalem is
spoken of in contrast to his reign at Hebron (2 Sam. v. 5;

The phrase “ King in Jerusalem.” 89

t Kings ii ro). It is used also in reference to Solomon,
in 1 Kings xi. 42, where it is said “he reigned in Jerusalem
over all Israel.” The historian uses the same phrase of
Rehoboam (1 Kings xiv. 21), of Abijam (1 Kings xv. 2), of
Asa (1 Kings xv. 10), and others. In the case of the kings
of Judah the phrase is applied by way of contrast, either
expressed or implied, to the kings of Israel who reigned in
Tirzah, or in Samaria. Hence Eichhorn and others naturally
consider that its occurrence in the book of Koheleth points
to a time subsequent to the schism between the kingdoms
of Israel and Judah. When Preston lays stress on the fact
that Solomon was “the ox/y ‘king over Israel in Jerusalem’ ”
—for David theld his court both in Hebron and in Jeru-
salem—and when he maintains that the statement of
chap. i. 1 ought to be regarded as ‘‘an undesigned evidence”
in favour of the hypothesis of the Solomonic authorship of
the work, he is strangely unmindful of the fact that, however
suitably such a phrase might have been used after the time
of Solomon in referring back to events which occurred in
the reign of that momarch, it could not have been used by
that king himself in any such signification. Solomon is
naturally spoken of as “king of Israel” (2 Kings xxiii. 13 ;
Neh. xiii. 26). Bullock tries to account for the mention of
the city of Jerusalem in chap, i 1 on the ground that that
city was “the scene of Solomen’s peculiar work for many
years,” and “the place which he had made the chief monu-
ment of his grandeur.” But this explanation is not satis-
factory, especially when one calls to mind the number of
other cities mentioned by the writer of 1 Kings (chap. ix.),
which were built by Solomon in various parts of the land
of Israel.

It may fairly be argued that the phrase “king in Jeru-
salem” could not have been used by Solomon without some
reference expressed or implied to Jerusalem as the seat of

90 Evidence against the Solomonic Authorship.

the theocracy. Bloch has endeavoured to interpret the
phrase in the disputed passage as having such a reference.
But the interpretation is scarcely defensible. For the nation of
Israel is not mentioned at all in the book, much less spoken
of as God's peculiar people. No allusion is made throughout
the work to “the Gentiles,” or to the position of Jerusalem
as the centre of the religious worship of Israel. Even the
great theocratic name of Jahaveh does not once occur in
the work. In this last particular the Book of Koheleth pre-
sents a striking contrast to the Book of Proverbs.

Consequently—although the expression “reigned in Jeru-
salem” is a common one, and is very suitably used by
historians like the writers of the Books of Samuel, the
Kings, and the Chronicles—the fact that the title “king in
Jerusalem” occurs only in the Book of Koheleth must be
regarded, not indeed as affording positive proof against
the theory of its Solomonic authorship, but as a piece of
evidence which, as far as it goes, tells in favour of the
conclusion that the writer of that book lived at a time when
Israel had ceased to be locked upon as an independent
nation, and when Jerusalem was no longer a royal resi-
dence.

Delitzsch, in common with the ablest modem critics, not
only regards the phrase “king over Jerusalem” as evidence
against the Solomonic authorship of the book, but also main-
tains that the use of the perfect tense (7) in the same
sentence (chap. i. 12) is strongly in favour of this conclu-
sion. In the statement “I Koheleth was king over Israel
in Jerusalem,” Solomon does not speak of himself as a reigning
monarch, but rather as one who had in past times exercised
regal authority. The remark of Vaihinger cannot easily be set
aside, namely, that the past “was” indicates a writer of later
date who adduces Solomon as speaking from his grave ; that
scholar, moreover, observes that the very expression proves

Legends of the Talmud respecting Solomon. 91

that the author of the book had no intention to make use of
any deception in representing Solomon as thus addressing
mankind. Delitzsch calls attention to the fact that a
Talmudic legend, probably connected with that already
mentioned (p. 81), is based on this very expression, and
that the legend exhibits a correct grammatical compre-
hension of the force and signification of the tense employed.
The legend referred to relates that Solomon was driven from
his throne on account of his sins and follies, and that his
throne was for a season occupied by an angel who assumed
the features and appearance of the great monarch, while
the latter was forced to wander about through the land of
Israel, begging his bread from synagogue to synagogue, and
from school to school, and crying out all the while, “I Kohe-
leth was king over Israel im Jerusalem.” The dethroned
monarch, according to the story, in the course of his sor-
rowful wanderings, was often beaten with a stick on account
of his apparently insane pretensions to regal dignity, and was
fed upon beans. In the bitterness of his soul he was wont
ever and anon to exclaim, “This is my portion of all my
labour ” (chap. ii. 10).+

Delitzsch maintains that it is mere self-deception to en-
deavour to persuade oneself that Solomon (who was king
for forty years without any interruption of his sovereignty,
and whose reign only terminated with his death), could,
in giving a retrospect of his life in advanced years, have
written, “I Koheleth was king over Israel.” He might,
indeed, have used the phrase in the sense of “I Koheleth
became,” or “have become, and still am king over Israel.”
But that sense is inadmissible in chap. i. 12 on account of
the perfect tenses which follow, which are all used in a
past signification. Had the writer intended to express the

1 Compare Longfellow’s Zales of a Wayside Inn, in which he depicts in a
similar condition Robert, King of Sicily.

92 “TI Koheleth was king over {srael.”

present tense, “I Koheleth am king,” in contrast to the
past tenses which follow, he would have made use of a
different construction. The verb cannot, in the context in
which it occurs, be grammatically translated “I Koheleth
am king,” nor can it be explained to signify, “I have been
king and am still 50." 1

‘Bloch and, still more recently, Bullock (in the Speaker's
Commentary) have attempted to explain the perfect tense
in Ecclesiastes i. 12, by adducing the story of Louis XIV.
of France, who, after the unsuccessful war of the Spanish
succession, was often wont to cry out: “when I was yet a
king.” In giving utterance to such an expression, the
French monarch compared his condition of powerlessness
with his former power and might. No such comparison
between the past and the present can have been in-
tended by Solomon in the simple narrative of chap. i. 12
For, although he is represented in this book as taking a
retrospect of his life, and as arriving at the conclusion that
all his might, glory, and wisdom were but vanity and vexa-
tion of spirit, he is nowhere depicted as comparing the sad
present with the glorious past, nor as looking back with regret
upon days of enjoyment which had passed away for ever.
Such a comparison would have been foreign to the purpose
of the book, though it might be required in order to justify the
interpretation sought to be put upon the terms of chap. i. 12.°

1 As Dr. Given, Professor of Hebrew, Magee Coll,, Londonderry, maintains in
his: Truth of Scripture in connection with Revelation, Inspiration, and the Canon.
Τ. ἃ T. Clark, 1881. He appeals to Exod. ii. 22, but see note on next page.

2 The dying words of the Roman Emperor Septimius Severus (A.D. 193-211),
omnia fui οὐ nihil expedit, “I have ‘been all and it profits me nothing”
might, indeed, be suitably quoted in illustration of the meaning of Kohe-
leth. But the second part of the sentence of the Roman Emperor expresses
that very comparison between the past and the present of his individual life, the
contrast between the state of glory he had attained and the dark future imme-
diately before him, which is required in any interpretation of the words before

us in order to make them suitable to Solomon,
® Passages like Gen, xxxii. 10 (11) or Psalm Ixxxviii. 5 (4), have no bearing

Attempts to answer Objections. 93

Mr, Johnston has attempted to put another sense on the
words, and argues that they may signify “that Koheleth
(whether he was or was not king when he wrote the Book
of Ecclesiastes) was king at the time when he did what
he. details throughout the treatise” (Zreatise on Authorship
of Ecclesiastes, p. 162). The suggestion is ingenious but
improbable. Had Solomon been the writer, he would have
added some such qualifying clause as “for many years” in
verse 12, or, omitting that verse entirely, would have com-
menced verse 13 with: “I Koheleth gave my heart to
seek, etc.” Mr. Johnston is far from being able to justify
his statement that the perfect in the passage in question,
in. place of being “adverse to the Solomonic authorship of
Ecclesiastes,” is “strongly confirmatory ” of that theory ; and
the passages adduced by him in support of this statement
entirely fail to prove his conclusion.

But the passage just discussed is not the only one which
presents a difficulty in the way of accepting the traditional
view of the authorship of the work. There are several ex-
pressions found in other passages which equally conflict with
the supposed Solomonic authorship. Thus, in chap. i. 16,
Solomon is represented as recording his experience in the

whatever upon the interpretation of the text. For ‘Mi in those passages is
evidently used in the sense of ‘‘Z am become’—‘“* J am.” Such presents are the
results of the historical past. Nor can the perfect in Exod. ii. 22. N'Y 14
M731 PISA be regarded as a fitting parallel. The perfect there is not equi-
valent to the Latin /vz, but is rather factus sum ; or, still better, is equivalent
to the Greek perfect which denotes an action completed in the past, whose con-
sequences last up to the time of the speaker. Hence Exod ii. 22 is best
rendered, ‘‘I am (lit. have become) a stranger in a strange land.” (See Drvver’s
feb, Tenses, § 8). In the passage (Prov. iv. 3) quoted by Mr. Johnston (p, 165
of his Treatise on the Authorship of Ecclesiastes), the reference is solely to the
past ; while in Eccl. vii. 19 the perfect in the second clause is conditioned by
the imperfect in the preceding, and consequently is rightly translated by the
English present tense. Those passages, therefore, are not ad rem. The pas-
sage in the Song of Songs viii. 10, quoted by Mr. Johnston, is not an appro-
priate parallel, while the perfect tenses in 1 Kings x. 6; I Kings xi. 11;
2 Chron. i, 11, are used in a strictly past signification.

94 Phrase opposed to Solomonte Authorship.

following terms: “I communed with my heart, saying,
Behold I have attained great and ever increasing wisdom over
all who were before me over Jerusalem.” As that monarch
had in reality but one predecessor who ruled over Israel in
Jerusalem, namely, his father David, the passage is naturally
considered to have been written at a time when the writer
could look back to a long line of Jewish kings who had ruled
in the sacred capital. The last clause of the verse is, as
Delitzsch has noted, singularly like that met with so fre-
quently in the inscriptions of the Assyrian monarchs, namely,
“the kings who were my predecessors.” Hengstenberg,
Bloch, and others have indeed maintained that the reference
is to the ancient Canaanitish kings who reigned over Jeru-
salem previous to the Israelitish conquest of the country,
such as Melchizedek in the days of Abraham (Gen. xv.), and
Adonizedek in those of Joshua (Josh. x.). The phrase, those
“who were before me over ὧν) Jerusalem,” evidently refers
to kings who ruled over that city.1 Prof. Taylor Lewis,
the American commentator, has ventured to characterize
such a conclusion as “entirely gratuitous,” He maintains
that the verse may refer to “any men of note and wealth
together with David and Saul, or the writer may well have
had in view old princes in Jerusalem, away back to the days

1 It is curious that Bullock, in his Introduction to Ecclesiastes in the Speaker's
Commentary, could write (p. 623) ; ‘‘the limitation of the word ‘all’ to kings is a
pure assumption which nothing in the context justifies. The writer compares
himself with all who in former times, in Jerusalem, possessed wisdom or riches,
possessions which are certainly not confined to kings.” The same expositor,
however, in his note in chap. i. 16 says, that ‘‘the reference is probably to the
line of Canaanitish kings who lived in Jerusalem before David took it, of whom the
names of Melchizedek (Gen. xiv. 18); Adonizedek (Josh. x. 1), and Araunah
(2 Sam, xxiv. 23), are known to us; or it may be to Solomon's contemporaries
of his own country (1 Kings iv. 31), and of other countries who visited him
(1 Kings iv. 34 and x. 24).” He mentions, at the end of the note, the fact which
upsets completely his former argument, namely, that ‘‘the preposition ‘in’ Jeru-
salem should be translated ‘over’! And yet he refers back to his Introduction,
p. 623, where no notice is taken of this important fact i

Difficulty felt by the Early Translators. 95

of Melchizedek.”! Such assertions only show how far pre-
possessions in favour of a certain view may lead the mind
away from the simple truth.

The sacred historian speaks of Solomon’s wealth and
wisdom as greater than those of the kings of other nations
(1 Kings iii. 12; x. 23, 24). His wisdom is said to have ex-
ceeded that of the children of the East country, and the
wisdom of Egypt (1 Kings iv. 30, 31). But such statements
are very different from that in Ecclesiastes i, 16, namely, that
it was greater than the wisdom of the rulers over Jerusalem
who were before him. An allusion to the old Canaanitish
kings who had lived centuries before Solomon would have
been here singularly incongruous ; nor were any of them, as
far as we know, specially renowned for wisdom. It is far
easier to suppose that the passage contains an anachronism
of little importance, and not caused by any ignorance on
the part of the writer of the well-known facts of Israelitish
history, as Hitzig arbitrarily supposes. It was not necessary
that the writer of the Book of Koheleth, in bringing forward
a Solomon redivivus recounting to mankind the lessons de-
rived from his experience, should study historical accuracy
in such unimportant points of detail. On the contrary, such
trifling inaccuracies make it tolerably plain that the writer
desired his readers to understand that: he had assumed the
role of Solomon only for a special purpose, and that his work
was not to be regarded either as an historical treatise, or as
an actual production of Solomon’s pen.

The early translators appear to have been quite aware of
the difficulty of explaining the statement in question as
Solomonic. They, therefore, had recourse to the device of
slightly modifying the text to suit their views. Thus the
Targum has translated the passage : “Behold I have increased

1 See in his note r on p. 42 of the English and American edition of Lange's
Commentary.

96 The Masoretic reading of the text correct.

and multiplied wisdom above all the wise men which were
before me in Jerusalem,” evidently referring to the four
Israelitish sages, Ethan and Heman and Calcol and Darda,
mentioned in 1 Kings iv. 31. The reading “in Jerusalem,”
although apparently supported by the LXX,, Syr., and Vulg.,
and found in not a few Hebrew MSS. (as well as adopted by
our Authorised Translation), must unquestionably be viewed
as a conjectural emendation of the original text. It is
specially mentioned by the Masorites ; and, notwithstanding
their general belief in the Solomonic authorship, such a
reading of the text is distinctly condemned as erroneous.’
The Masoretic reading “over Jerusalem” could never have
found its way into the Hebrew text. in preference to the
easier, and far more comprehensible, reading “in Jerusalem,”
had it not been genuine.

In spite, then, of all the efforts of commentators to evade
the fact, we cannot but regard this as one of several indica-
tions given by the author himself, that his work was not
really intended to be regarded as a production of the great
Israelitish monarch, although written in his name.

The only other instance which we shall here adduce
occurs in the epilogue of the work, which begins with verse
9 of chap. xii, the Book of Koheleth itself properly ending
with the eighth verse of that chapter.

A sketch of the various interpretations proposed for the
last six verses of the book will be found in the commentary.
We must, however, here notice briefly the view put forward
by Krochmal in 1851, and adopted with slight modifications
by several other Jewish scholars, such as Fiirst in his work on
the Canon of the Old Testament (1868), and Graetz in his
Commentary on Koheleth (1871),

According to Krochmal, the verses in question were added

v pbviea ἩΡῚ. ὉΠ ΒΡΊΟΞΠ Op Sy NMMDIN ΓΕΘ ΝῚ *MADN NTT NN.
3 See Levita’s "Alassoveth ha- Massor relly, edited by Ginsburg, p. 228,

Opinions of Krochmal and First. 97

at the final settlement of the Canon at.the Synod at Jamnia,
A.D. 90, and were designed to serve not merely as a con-
clusion to the Book of Koheleth, but as a fitting close to
the end of the third and last division of the Jewish Scrip-
tures, commonly known as the Hagiographa. Krochmal
considers Koheleth to have been the last book in that
division, although no proof of this can be adduced except
his interpretation of the epilogue of that work, He inter-
prets the clause “the words of the wise are as goads,” in
verse 11 to refer to the authors of the several books con-
tained in the third division. By the DiDDN ya the “lords
of assemblies,” he considers the members ‘of the Jewish San-
hedrin to be signified, who are likened to firmly fixed nails
which cannot be moved. Why the members of the Jewish
council should thus be referred to in the epilogue, and what
is meant by their being thus termed, is hard to divine.
The modification of this translation given by Fiirst, namely,
“the words of the wise are like goads, and like pegs driven
in by the men of the assembly” is ungrammatical ; because,
as Delitzsch observes, “the accusative after the .passive par-
ticiple can express any nearer definition, but cannot, like
the genitive, express the effective cause.” It must be ob-
served, too, in passing, that for the same reason our English
Version “as nails fastened by the masters of assemblies ”
must also be abandoned, although formerly given by a
scholar like Lightfoot, and recently adopted and commented
on by Bullock in the Speaker's Commentary. The transla-
tion of Fiirst being thus inadmissible, it is unnecessary to
discuss his interpretation of the second clause, namely, that
the books of the Hagiographa are signified by “the pegs
firmly driven in,” or, finally admitted into the Canon by the
men of the Assembly.

The rendering given by Graetz requires several alterations
to be introduced into the Hebrew text which are not sanctioned.

H

98 Opinions of First and Graets.

by the authority of the MSS. or of the ancient versions (see
our comm.). He translates: “Words of the wise are as
ox-goads and like pegs planted in. The members of the
Assembly have handed them down from one shepherd.”
Graetz, after Krochmal, considers “the words of the wise” to
signify the writings of the Hagiographa, which were, according
to him, not considered, like the Pentateuch, to be the outcome
of direct revelation from God, nor to be books, like the writ-
ings of the Prophets, which could be indirectly traced up to
the same source, but works written by various authors, who,
though not prophets, were “wise men.” The last clause,
therefore, he considers to be an endorsement of the Book of
Koheleth as a book approved of by the men of the Assembly
as being the production of a truly wise man, or “ shepherd.”
Fiirst explains the clause “they (the writings of the wise)
are delivered from one shepherd,” to mean that the books
referred to were to be regarded as really proceeding from
God, who is meant by the “Shepherd.” But Graetz regards
that sentence as “obscure,” because God is termed only in
poetry “the Shepherd of Israel,” while the passage cannot
possibly refer to Moses; although the latter is the interpre-

tation given in the Targum and the Midrash.

1 The Targum paraphrases the verse thus : ‘‘ Words of wise men are like to
goads and to sharp-pointed instruments which are sharp to teach wisdom to those
deficient in knowledge, as a goad teaches the ox; and the Rabbis of the San-
hedrin, the masters of the Halachas and the Midrashim which were given by means
of Moses the prophet, who himself fed the people of the house of Israel in the
wilderness with manna and with precious food,” The Midrash Koheleth takes
the word MiBDN in the sense of ‘‘ assemblies.” It quotes in its explanation the
saying of God to Moses in Deut. vi. 6, ‘these words which I command thee this
day,” which ‘‘words” it considers were partly handed down by tradition to the men
of the Sanhedrin. In proof of this the saying of God in Num. xi. 16 is adduced,
‘‘gather unto me seventy men,” and the remark is made that the words are not to
be regarded as if they came from the mouth of the Sanhedrin, but as heard ‘‘ from
the mouth of Moses, because it is written ‘they are given from one shepherd,’ that
is Moses; and not as if one heard it from the mouth of Moses but from the mouth
of the Holy One, blessed be He! as it is written ‘from one Shepherd,’ and there
is no shepherd except the Holy One, blessed be He! As it is written ‘Give ear,
O Shepherd of Israel."”" Ps, Ixxx. 1.

Opinions of Bloch and Renan. 99

Bloch (in his Studien, p. 139 ff) has adopted another modi-
fication of Krochmal’s view. He maintains that the epilogue
consisting of ch. xii.9-14 is an addition appended to the book
not at a much earlier date than the Synod of Jamnia, namely,
by the collectors of the third and last division of the Jewish
Canon centuries before the Christian era. These, “the men
of the Great Synagogue,” are the MBO ἜΚ, “the masters
of assemblies,” the descendants in office and position of “the
chief of the fathers” mentioned in Nehemiah viii. 13. They
inserted the Book of Koheleth in the last collection of the
Holy Scriptures because they regarded it as a production of
Solomon’s pen, but they interpolated passages here and there
in the original work. For, when the canon was finally closed,
no book found admission into that collection which was
supposed to have been written later than the period which
terminated with the death of Artaxerxes Longimanus (B.C.
425). It did not lie within the compass of Bloch’s later
work to give any detailed explanation of the several clauses
of the epilogue of Koheleth, so that we cannot be certain
how far he agrees in the other details with the explan-
ations of Krochmal, Fiirst, or Graetz. But, if the epilogue
really referred to the closing of the third part of the Jewish
Canon, it is strange that the early expositions should have
never spoken of that fact; and it is remarkable that no
evidence whatever can be discovered; even in Talmudic
sources, of a period in which the Book of Koheleth stood at
the end of the third division of the O.T., which, according to
this theory, is its true and proper place. The fact of the
epilogue being found in the version of the LXX,, and in all
the other ancient versions, is opposed to. Krochmal’s ideas.

Renan in his recent work on Ecclesiastes has adopted the
views of Krochmal and Graetz with respect to the composi-
tion of the epilogue. The work of Professor Graetz, which
has found few admirers in Germany, is regarded by the

100 The three points of the Epilogue.

French savant as one of the most important contributions to
the study of Ecclesiastes, while the far more profound work
of Professor Franz Delitzsch is passed over by him in utter
silence. The latter scholar has satisfactorily proved that the
style and language of the epilogue is marked by the same
peculiarities which characterise the other parts of the book.
The language of the Book of Koheleth is akin to that of the
Books of the Chronicles. Its idiom approximates in some
respects to that of the Mishna, although the Hebrew is of a
decidedly more ancient type. Several of its expressions are
regarded by the Talmudists as obscure, and are commented
on by them in such a manner as to prove that the words
made use of were antiquated at the time when the Talmuds
were composed. The language of the epilogue is identical
with that of the body of the work. This fact tells strongly
against a theory founded on no real basis of evidence.

‘The Book of Koheleth considered apart from the epilogue
begins and ends with almost the same words: “ Vanity of
vanities, saith Koheleth, the whole is vanity.” A note-
worthy modification of this clause occurs, however, in the
refrain at the end of the book. The name Koheleth is there
found with the article affixed, “the Koheleth.” Proper names
in Hebrew, when special reference is made to their meaning,
sometimes take the article. This appears to be the case in
the epilogue, where a contrast seems to be drawn between the
ideal Koheleth or Solomon, who is represented as the speaker
throughout, and the actual Koheleth who ventures at the
close of his work to say a few words concerning himself and
his book.

The epilogue intimates that the author felt it necessary
to say something in conclusion (1) about himself and the
manner in which he had composed his book, (2) about the
importance of the sacred writings in general and of his own
book in particular, and (3) concerning the ultimate conclusion

The Epilogue against the Traditional view. 101

at which he arrived. The remarks of the writer on each of
these three heads occupy in each case only two lines. The
terseness and brevity of the author cause considerable
difficulty in attempting to comprehend exactly his mean-
ing.

In verse 9 the mask hitherto worn by the writer is cast
aside, and he ceases to speak in the name of “the Koheleth”
the son of David, but now addresses the reader in his own
person. The change is denoted by the use of the title “ Ko-
heleth ” without the article in verse 9 in close proximity to,
and in striking contrast with “the Koheleth,” with the article
in verse 8, The writer thus proceeds: “And, moreover,” that
is, what remains to be said now at the close of the book is,
that Koheleth, the actual preacher and author of the work,
“was a wise man,” not an actual king or a ruler in Israel, as
was “the Koheleth,” or Solomon. Still speaking of himself
in the third person the author continues: “ Further,” that is,
over and above being gifted with wisdom, “he (Koheleth)
taught the people knowledge, and (in doing so) pondered
over (lit. weighed) and investigated, arranged many proverbs.”
Inasmuch as he was himself a wise man, though not so wise
as the great Koheleth of Israelitish history, the writer states
further that he, too, had sought to make use of his wisdom by
instructing the people of his own generation, and was wont
to teach, like his great model the wise Solomon, by means
of proverbs, well pondered over, carefully investigated and
duly arranged for the special object in view. In drawing up
original proverbs, or in collecting together such sententious
sayings from various sources, “ Koheleth sought to discover
words of pleasantness, and that which was written in upright-
ness, words of truth.” That is, the writer of the Book of Kohe-
leth had adopted the plan of teaching by means of proverbs,
because he found that they were peculiarly attractive to the
popular taste. But he took great care to make use only of

102 The wews of Ewald and Delitzsch.

such “sayings of the wise” as were written with an honest
and good intention, and were in reality “words of truth.”

Language such as this could scarcely have been written by ,
the actual Solomon of history.

The next verse of the epilogue (verse 11) speaks more
generally concerning “words of the wise,” and indirectly
asserts the importance of the Book of Koheleth. This verse
unquestionably presents considerable difficulties to the ex-
positor. Its great difficulty lies in the use of the expression
DABON Oya. The first word of the phrase signifies “lords,”
or αἰ masters,” but usage forbids it to. be explained in the
sense of “leaders” or “editors,” as some have sought to
interpret it. It is quite possible to expound the phrase as
referring to the members of the Jewish Sanhedrin, or even
in the sense of “members of academies,” if such interpre-
tations could be shown to convey any appropriate meaning,
and were agreeable to the context. Despairing of being able
to extract any satisfactory sense by such forced explanations,
Ewald, Delitzsch, and other eminent scholars have been led
to maintain that the phrase is a designation of the proverbs
to which reference is made in the previous verse. Ewald
translates the clause, “and like driven nails the well-com-
pacted [sayings] given by one shepherd.” That is, proverbs
delivered not as isolated maxims, but well-compacted and
well-arranged in their connection one with another “by one
shepherd,” or teacher of a congregation, are like nails well
driven in. Delitzsch considers the expression to be a designa-
tion of the words of the wise as forming “collections” standing
together in order and rank, which, like nails driven in, secured
against separation, and standing on one common ground, are
both a help to the memory on the one hand, and to a correct
comprehension of their meaning on the other.

The objection to this interpretation is, that although the

! For other interpretations of the clause see our Crit, Comm.

What is meant by “masters of collections.” 103

second word in the phrase, viz., MDDY, is a term which can
be applied to “collections” of things or of sayings, as well
as to “assemblies” of persons, the first, (2) is always used
of persons, except in cases where things are personified.
Such a personification does not appear natural here. We
prefer, therefore, to understand the phrase in the sense of
‘persons skilled in collections,’ or well acquainted with
collections of wise sayings, namely, with books in which
such sayings are “intelligently grouped together” and com-
pacted into one whole, Compare the well-known expressions
NIP ya, “masters of Scripture,” meaning, persons . well
versed in Sacred Scripture, ΠΣ bya “@ master of the
Mishna,’ or one well versed therein ; Dpwd ya, “masters
of incantations,’ or persons skilled in their use. ᾿

Our explanation of the verse is as follows : “ Words of wise
men are like the goads,” for, as oxen are driven forward and
guided by the goad into the path in which they should go, so
are men impelled onward, and preserved in the right way by
the ‘sayings of the wise.” “And like nails firmly driven in
(the noun does not signify ¢ent-pegs or stakes) are those well
versed in collections (of such sayings)—they (the collections
themselves) are given from one Shepherd.” Disciples
thoroughly versed in “the sayings of the wise,” and who not
only “hear” the words of wisdom, but “do” what wisdom
enjoins—for this is plainly the meaning of the writer —“are
like nails firmly driven into” some wall, which cannot be
easily pulled out. Such are, to use New Testament language,

1 The Jerusalem Talmud, Sanhedr. x. 28 a, takes the word in the last signifi-
fication. Its words are: ‘‘ There are no MYDIDN except the Sanhedrin, according
as it is written, gather to me seventy men of the elders of Isracl (Num. xi. 16).
Another interpretation is that the N1D1DN ya [the masters of the assemblies] are
the words which are spoken in the assembly” (ΠΡ) Δ), See Excursus No. 4,

Glossary, s.v.
3 Delitzsch regards the proverbs or maxims as here personified, and compares

‘the expression Dwray (Prov. xxii. 20) excellent men, princes, used there of such
faphroisms. Compare D'7"3), Prov, viii, 6.

104 Devine inspiration claimed by Koheleth.

no longer like “ children tossed to and fro, and carried about
with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, in crafti-
ness, after the wiles of error” (Eph. iv: 14). They are rather
“like nails firmly riveted” which cannot be removed from
the ground or place into which they are fastened.

The author evidently regarded his own book as belonging
to the category of such collections of the sayings of the wise.
Many of the proverbs in it were borrowed from other wise
men, not a few being probably aphorisms of Solomon borne
by tradition down the stream of time. The value and im-
portance of such “collections” of the “sayings of the wise ”
as Koheleth speaks of, arise from their having a common
origin, being alike the outcome of Divine inspiration. “They
are given from one Shepherd,” who is above, and from whom
cometh “every good gift and every perfect boon” (Jas. i. 17).
That great Shepherd of men imparts the ability to utter
words which have power to impel men onward in the path
of rectitude, and to preserve them from falling away into
sin. The Books of the Old Testament in general, inclusive
of the Book of Koheleth, are profitable for teaching, both in
the way of conviction and correction, and are fitted to train
up believers “in righteousness” (2 Tim. iii. 16). The“ words
of the wise” contained in the Book of Koheleth, whether
sayings of Solomon himself, or attributed to him by a lawful
literary device, “ are given from the one Shepherd,” who not
only leads Israel as a flock, but also directs all those who put
their trust in Him.

Words such as these of the epilogue cannot have proceeded
from Solomon. They are only intelligible when explained,
as Delitzsch has interpreted them, as containing “an impor-
tant apologetic hint,’ indicating that the collection of the
sayings of the wise in the Book of Koheleth, though not
proceeding from the pen of Solomon, was, as well as the
well-known Book of Proverbs (which is in the main a

Koheleth on the whole duty of man, 105

collection of that monarch’s sayings), justly entitled to take
rank as a book written under Divine inspiration.

“Moreover,” adds Koheleth, who, here in the epilogue
(though not in his book), addresses himself to an individual
disciple, “ My son, be warned,” be on your guard against error
in this matter “Of making many books there is no end, and
much study is a weariness of the flesh.” In the pursuit after
wisdom the learner’s true motto ought to be “ szultume non
multa” (Pliniti Ep. viii. 9). A real knowledge of a little is
better than a superficial acquaintance with many branches of
human learning. Let the disciple deeply persuaded of the
sad truth of the fact that “vanity of vanities, all is vanity,”
amid all the vanities of this present life be guided by the
“words of the -wise,” especially by the words of those holy
men upon whose shoulders the mantle of inspiration was cast
by the great Shepherd of the flock of man. “For the end of
the matter, when all is heard (which can be adduced by the
wisest of mankind) is, fear God and keep His commandments
—for this ought every man to do.” This is the duty of the
high and of the lowly, of the king and of the subject, of the
rich and of the poor, of the learned and of the unlearned, of
the man whose faith is so strong, that it can remove mountains,
and of him whose faith is so feeble that he stumbles over every
stone which may lie in his path. For there is a judgment
which awaits man in a future state of existence. God shall
not merely judge the nations—a doctrine often taught in Old
Testament literature—and execute judgment on the ungodly
by punishments meted out in this world, but He shall also
judge all men. In that great judgment the inequalities of the
present shall be duly adjusted, and its enigma fully solved.

1 ‘The expression for ‘‘ moreover” in this verse is somewhat different from that
inverse 9, and either signifies, as Ewald understands it, that what follows is to be
looked upon as the result of what had been already said; or better, perhaps, as
Delitzsch, ‘‘ what still remains to be mentioned is” that which follows.

106 Revelation of a coming Judoment.

“God shall bring every work into a judgment (which shall
pass) upon all that is concealed, whether good or whether
evil.”

This revelation of a coming judgment, in which every in-
dividual man is to be rewarded according to his deserts, is,
perhaps, the most striking truth contained in the whole Book
of Koheleth. In this particular Ecclesiastes is in advance of
the other writings of the Old Testament. It was not even
granted to a Daniel to understand this truth fully. He was
permitted to speak of the resurrection of “many of those
who sleep in the dust of the earth” in Messianic days, and
to announce that some should then “awake to everlasting
life” and others “to shame and everlasting contempt.”
Nowhere else in the Old Testament is it plainly revealed
that in the judgment day every secret thing shall be made
manifest, and that “each of us shall give an account of
himself to God” (Rom. xiv. 12).

The announcement of this new doctrine at the close of
this strange Book of Koheleth was the breaking forth, amid
the darkness, of the dawn of a better and fuller revelation.
It forms a precious link in the chain of the Old Testament
preparations for the New. The revelation of Messianic days
has shed a clearer light upon our path, Jesus Christ hath,
indeed, brought immortality to light by His Gospel. He
hath overcome death, and doubt too, and opened the gate of
everlasting life to all them that believe on His name.

CHAPTER. ν.

THE AUTHORSHIP OF THE BOOK OF KOHELETH.

197

CHAPTER ‘V.

The denial of the Solomonic authorship does not detract from the authority of
the Book of Ecclesiastes, 109—No new facts of Solomon’s life contained in
the LBuvk, r10—Charge of forgery unjust, 111—The practice of Greek and
Roman historians, 111—The Emperor Claudius’ speech, 111—The Sacred
Writers availed themselves of similar freedom, 112—Rev. David Johnston’s
work on Ecclesiastes, 114—-Endorsed by Prof, Leathes, 114—His argument in
favour of the common authorship of the Books of Proverbs and Ecclesiastes, 114
—Reply to this argument, 115—The Writer of Koheleth uses Solomonic expres-
sions, 116—Renan’s former opinion as to the date of the book, 117—The
linguistic features of. the book, 118-- Why Solomon is introduced by the writer
as spokesman, 118—Dr. Pusey’s unfair charge against the scholars who deny
the Solomonic authorship, 119—Bloch’s attempt, and the earlier attempt of
Renan, to assign the phenomena of the book to copyists, 121—Ieculiarities of
grammar, 121—The picture of life given by Koheleth, 122—Oppression and
tyranny during the days of Solomon, 122—Legend of the Midrash as to
the stages of Solomon’s fall, 123—The complaints of oppression in the book
opposed to the Traditional view, 124—The book no penitential confession, 124
—M. Renan’s new work on Ecclesiastes, 125—His ideas as to Canticles and
Ecclesiastes, 126—Maintains the modern date of the book, 126—Denies its
Solomonic authorship, 127—His suggestions as to the name Koheleth, 127—
lis portrait of the author, 129—That portrait a caricature, 129—Renan
maintains the writer to be a mere man of the world, 130—A type of the
modern Jew, 132—Dean Plumptre’s ideal biography of the writer, 133—His
early life, 133—Crossed in love, 134—Turns philosopher, 134—Returns to
his early faith, 135--Comments on this view, 135—Probable date of Koheleth,
136—The last of the Hebrew Prophets, 136—-The work a preparation for
Christ, 137.

CHAPTER V.

THE AUTHORSHIP OF THE BOOK OF KOHELETH.

IN our last chapter, on a survey of one portion of the
evidence presented by statements which occur in the Book
of Koheleth itself, we saw that it was highly probable that
the real author of that work was not the great king of Israel,
although the writer thought fit to put his own reflections on
the vanity of human life into the mouth of Solomon. No
more suitable person could have been adduced as a preacher
of such sermon on the vanity of all earthly things than a
monarch universally regarded as the wisest of men, and one
who had fully experienced in his own case the unsatisfying
character of all earthly joys.

A recent defender of the Solomonic authorship has ventured
to affirm that “the impeachment of the traditional authorship
of Deuteronomy and Ecclesiastes detracts from their trust-
worthiness, by representing as literary fictions what those
ancient writings themselves represent as historic facts,
Hence the interests at stake in discussing the authorship
of Ecclesiastes or of Deuteronomy are vastly more momen-
tuous than any interests affected by discussing the authorship
of anonymous writings like the Epistle to the Hebrews.” 1
This critic further asserts that “the Book of’ Ecclesiastes
claims Solomon as its author, precisely as Deuteronomy
claims Moses, and the Pauline Epistles claim the Apostle
Paul ; and it is not easy to conceive how, if such indications

1 Treatise on the Authorship of Ecclesiastes. (Macmillan & Co.) p. 11.
109

tie Authority of the Book of Noheleth.

of authorship as are contained in Ecclesiastes are not literally
true, any averment of authorship found elsewhere in the
Scriptures can be accepted as trustworthy; or how, if the
Scriptures ought not to be believed in such a plain matter
of fact as the authorship claimed in them, they can deserve
to be trusted in other details purporting to be simple state-
ments of historical and doctrinal facts.” }

The authorship of the Book of Deuteronomy cannot be
discussed here. But the assertion just referred to, so far as
the. Book of Ecclesiastes is concerned, is completely unjustifi-
able. The authority and trustworthiness of the Book of
Ecclesiastes are not imperilled by the denial of its Solomonic
authorship. No “historical fact " whatever is thereby neces-
sarily resolved into a mere “literary fiction.” It is highly im-
proper for any defender of the authority of Sacred Scripture
to. assert that the Book of Ecclesiastes is open to the charge
of “deceit and falsehood,” and that its doctrinal statements
must be received with suspicion, if the superscription of the
book (ch. i. 1) is viewed, not as expressing an historical truth,
but as a literary device.

The general character and value of the Book of Koheleth
are in no wise affected by a denial of the traditional opinion.
The experience of Koheleth may have been truly and really
the experience of Solomon, although not a single sentence
in the book proceeded actually from the pen of the latter. It
is remarkable that this so-called “autobiography ” does not
mention a single fact connected with Solomon’s life which
might not easily have been derived from the narrative set
forth in the First Book of Kings. This could scarcely have
been the case had Solomon been the writer. Nay more, the
most important acts of his reign are passed over in silence.
Not one word is said concerning the building of the temple,
not a single allusion is made throughout the book to that

1 Treatise on the Authorship of Ecclesiastes. (Macmillan & Co.) p. 11.

Not open to the charge of forgery. IIT

sin of idolatry whereby he provoked Jahaveh to anger, nor
to. the adversaries who were raised up to chastise him on
account of that transgression, and whose actions embittered
his last years.

It would be unjust to regard the Book of Wisdom, though
professedly written by Solomon (see p. 60), in the light of
an imposition or a forgery. The charge of forgery would
be preferred against the Book of Koheleth with still greater
injustice. It has always been considered perfectly justifiable
for an author, in accordance with the indications found in
history, to pourtray in prose or in verse the feelings and
sentiments of distinguished persons on remarkable occasions.
As instances of such a practice, Delitzsch pertinently cites the
speeches of distinguished commanders and statesmen which
are to be found in the works of the great Greek and Roman
historians. Some of those orations rest no doubt upon a
positive historical basis. But in the majority of instances
the individual historian has himself worked up the material
afforded to him, and the speeches to be found in his pages
exhibit the same style and linguistic peculiarities which
characterise the other parts of his work. The Emperor
Claudius delivered in A.D. 48 a remarkable oration in favour
of the full privileges of Roman citizenship being granted
to the communities of Gallia Comata, or Gaul proper, and of
the AZduan senators being permitted to present themselves
as candidates for civic honours at Rome. This has been
duly recorded by Tacitus (Anual, xi. 24). But the form
in which it appears on the pages of the Roman historian
is very different from that which it assumes on the bronze
tablets discovered in Lyons in A.D. 1528, and still pre-
served in the Museum of that city. The tablets repre-

1 The tablets in question are beautifully cut and are as legible now as when
first engraved. The inscription is given in full in Grusteri Inscriptiones Antique
totius orbis Romani, p. Dut. The tablets themselves, which are duly regarded as
a monument of great national interest, are kept in the Palais des Arts, Lyons.

ΤΙ2 Liberty taken by the sacred writers.

sent the speech as it was originally published by the
Imperial command. But the Roman historian, in relating
the emperor’s oration in a form suited to his Annals, and
in giving it a more elegant form than it assumes on the
Bronze Tablets, had not the slightest intention of imposing
on the credulity of his readers, nor has any scholar ventured
to accuse him as guilty in this particular of “ deceit and
falsehood.” !

Instances can also be given in which the sacred writers
of the Old, and even of the New Testament Scriptures,
have not hesitated to avail themselves of a similar literary
freedom. The pen of the historian himself, as Delitzsch
observes, is distinctly perceptible in the greater part of the
prophetic addresses recorded in the Books of Kings and
Chronicles. Caspari, an eminent scholar, and one of the
most earnest defenders of the truths of Revelation, notices
that several of the discourses in the Chronicles, when com-
pared with those in the Books of the Kings, are distinguished
by a noteworthy peculiarity of style, specially characteristic
of the writers of the former books.? The sacred historians

1 Delitzsch, in his important article, in Luthardl’s Zeitschrift fir kirchliche
Wissenschaft u. kirchl. Leben, Heft vi. 1882, on ‘the Decalogue in Exodus and
Deuteronomy,”. adduces other instances. Cicero’s third oration against Cata-
line (Cazé. iii. 2) contains the Ictter of Lentulus to Catiline, which is also com-
municated by Sallust in his Bed/um Catilinarium (cap. xliv.). The substance of
the letter has been given by both, but the form which it assumes varies consider-
ably in the two narratives, Delitzsch points out that the differences in accounts
of the Decalogue in Exod. xx. and Deut. y. are owing to the same cause.

2 Caspari, in his treatise Ueber den Syrisch-Ephraimitischen Krieg, pp. 52 ff,
adduces certain proofs to show that the writer of the Chronicles did not invent the
speeches which appear in his history, but that he worked them up in a free manner
from the original sources, clothing them in a form peculiar to himself and his
time, A comparison of the discourses common to ‘the Chronicles and the Kings
shows that the editor of the Book of Chronicles has on the whole faithfuliy
reproduced his original, but still has altered it in several places ; and he has dealt
in the same manner with the original of those speeches which are not found
in the Books of the Kings. Compare, for example, 2 Kings xviii. 22 and
Isaiah xxxvi. 7, with 2 Chronicles xxaii, 12. There is, moreover, a very striking
similarity between the most of the speeches which occur in the Books of the

Examples of such literary freedom. 113

sometimes incorporate records into their narratives substan-
tially in the form in which they were. originally composed.
But it is more usual for such authors to reproduce in their
own style those poems and speeches which were suited to
the object in view. :

That the sacred writers did not consider themselves
debarred from making use of the liberty ordinarily accorded
to other historians is plain from a candid examination of
their productions. The Psalter itself, notes Delitzsch, “con-
tains not a few Psalms entitled WW) (“of David”), which
were not composed by David himself, but by unknown poets
who transferred themselves in thought into David’s place,
situation, and feelings.” Delitzsch considers Psalm cxliv. to
be an instance of such usage. That Psalm, according to his
opinion, was founded on the expressions used by David in
his celebrated combat with Goliath (1 Sam. xvii. 47). This
fact is also recognised by the LXX., who add to the simple
superscription “of David,” which occurs in the Hebrew
Psalter, an explanatory clause, πρὸς τὸν Γολιάδ, * concerning
Goliath.” Still more noteworthy is the fact that the writer
of the Chronicles (1 Chr. xvi.), when he attempts to give
an idea of the songs of praise sung on the occasion of
the removal of the ark from the house of Obed-edom to the
tabernacle which David pitched for it in Jerusalem, actually
puts into the mouth of David the first and the last two verses
of Psalm cvi.; although that psalm, as has been admitted
by the most orthodox critics (as for example, Dean Perowne),
must have been composed after the date of the Exile

Other instances might be adduced. These are, however,

Chronicles, which proves that the author considered himself at liberty to make a
free use of the material which he had at hand, and did not consider himself
bound in all cases to give the zpstssima verba,

1 ΤΊ is also worthy of note that passages from Psalms xcvi. and cv. are also
quoted in the same song of praise, although these Psalms were evidently written
in post-exilian times, and refer to the period ot the captivity.

I

114 Argument drawn from “identical” words.

sufficient for our present purpose. Such points have been
passed over in silence by the recent defender of the traditional
theory of the Solomonic authorship of Ecclesiastes ; whose
work, as it is the most elaborate, though not the most
scholarly, which has lately appeared on that side, cannot be
left altogether unnoticed. It has been highly praised and
its arguments have been pronounced conclusive by Pro-
fessor Stanley Leathes of London.!' Hence it requires more
than a mere passing reference. ‘Though issued anony-
mously, we are permitted to state that the writer is Rev.
David Johnston of Herray, Scotland.

This critic has attempted, by an elaborate induction of
“identical words” and “coincidences” in style and phrase-
ology, to demonstrate that the Book: of Proverbs and the
Book of Ecclesiastes have one and the same author. The
references to “kings” and “rulers,” the. frequent mention of
“the eyes” in proverbial sentences, the occurrence of the
same words in both books, such as the nouns signifying
“street,” “delight,” “orchard,” “slothfulness,” “fool,” “ wis-
dom,” “ riches,” “wealth,” the frequent use of the common
adjectives meaning “ good,” “ better than,” etc., have all been
carefully registered, tabulated, and counted up, and the re-
sults are triumphantly paraded as undesigned evidences of a
cumulative character in proof of the traditional view. The
isolated instance of the expression “my son” in the epilogue
has not been forgotten. The strength or weakness of this
line of argument can be as well appreciated by the English
student as by the Hebrew scholar. Professor Stanley
Leathes in his review has incautiously observed that “the
force of this evidence, so far as it goes, seems to be irresistible.”
These critics seem to forget that the argument on which they
rely proves too much. By the same line of argument the

1 In the Christian Church (London : Hodder:and Stoughton), numbers for
February, March, April, 1881,

Solomonic expressions found in Koheleth. 115

Book of Wisdom and the Book of Ecclesiasticus, or Ben
Sira, although extant only in Greek,! may with equal reason
be ascribed to Solomon. For, if the English student will,
with the aid of Cruden’s Concordance to the A.V. transla-
tion of the Apocrypha, count up the number of times the
majority of such words as are referred to by Mr. Johnston
occur in the Books of Wisdom and of Ben Sira, and then
compare the whole with the Book of Proverbs, he will obtain
results of a similar character to those noticed by the Scotch
critic. Nor have we to go far to discover the reason of
this phenomenon. It is simply because the Book of Kohe-
leth (or Ecclesiastes), the Book of Wisdom, and the Book of
Ben Sira (or Ecclesiasticus), abound in “ proverbs,” more or
less directly modelled after the pattern of the sententious
sayings contained in the ancient Solomonic Book of Proverbs.

An attempt has been made by Mr. Johnston to derive an
argument in favour of the Solomonic authorship of the Book,
from the occurrence in it of a few expressions also found in
several prayers of Solomon recorded by the writers of ‘the
Books of Kings and Chronicles, It will be readily admitted
that there are some phrases common to the three books,
namely “the heart of the sons of men,” “there is no man who
sinneth not,” etc.? All, however, that such “ correspondences”
can be fairly considered to prove is, that the writer of

1 The Greek text of Ben Sira is, as has been already noticed, a translation
from a Ilebrew original. See p. 32.

2 Mr. Johnston, in p, 115 of his 7reatise, seems to regard it as « significant
fact that the temple is called in ch. iv. 17 (English Version, ch. v. 1) by the
name of ‘‘ house,” inasmuch as Solomon uses that term of the temple no less than
sixteen times in I Kings viii. It is not, however, certain, though it is, perhaps,
probable, that the temple is alluded to in the passage in question. But as has
already been noticed, in an “autobiography” of any kind whatever, Solomon
could scarcely have avoided making some allusion to the building of the temple,
which was the grand event of his reign. No such allusion, however, can be
pointed out in the Book of Ecclesiastes, That the phraseology of Solomon should
have been imitated by a later writer, writing under his name, is only what we
might have expected,

116 Renan on the critics of Gesentus’ School.

Ecclesiastes was acquainted with the records of Solomon's
sayings and acts as given by the sacred historians, a fact
which no critic has ever called in question.!

For it was only natural that the writer of the Book of
Kohcleth in representing Solomon as setting forth his views
upon the vanity of human affairs, arrived at after long and
extensive experience, should occasionally employ words and
expressions used also by Solomon. The wonder is, not that
there are some words and phrases in the book drawn from
such a source, but that there are so few. The “ linguistic
features” of the book, however, are decidedly not Solomonic,
The author may, indeed, have availed himself in some places
of certain genuine sayings and proverbs of Solomon handed
down by oral tradition. But to what extent he has done
so, it is, of course, now quite impossible to ascertain.

Renan’s remarks in reference to the Song of Songs have
been of late frequently quoted by English writers, as if they
afforded a conclusive answer to all the objections against
the traditional view of the authorship of Ecclesiastes derived
from its linguistic characteristics. In’ speaking of the Song
of Songs, Renan observes that the critics of Gesenius’ school
have occupicd themselves too exclusively with grammatical
and philological considerations, and have been too prone
neglect historical and literary considerations in deciding
questions concerning the authorship of particular books.*
There is, no doubt, much truth in this remark, but it has no
real bearing upon the question before us. There is a very
marked distinction observable between the language of the
Song of Songs and that of Ecclesiastes ; and distinguished

1 Tt ought to be noted in justice to Mr. Johnston that he has himself perceived
the difficulty of urging such points as evidence on. the question of authorship.
Ife attaches, however, great importance to the occurrence of ‘‘ certain words
or phrases strikingly confirmatory of the Solomonic authorship,’ such as those
noticed above.

2 Renan, Le Cantigue, pp. 90, 108. See Johnston’s Zyvadise, p. 38.

ffis former views on the date of Koheleth. 117

critics like Delitzsch, while upholding the Solomonic author-
ship of the former poem, have felt themselves compelled to
deny that Solomon was the writer of the latter work.

The grounds, on which Renan in his {estory of the Shemttic
Languages! affirmed that the Book of Koheleth ought to be
regarded as a work of the Solomonic period of Hebrew litera-
ture, are not such as are likely to commend themselves to
critics with any belief whatever in the Divine inspiration of
the Book of Ecclesiastes. It is dangerous in such a question
to seek for an ally amongst writers of the school to which
M. Renan belongs. In his work on The Antichrist, that critic
speaks of Ecclesiastes as the only charming book that has
ever been written by a Jew. He praises it, however, not so
much for its literary charms as for its scepticism. A work full
of such daring sceptical opinions could not, he there maintain-
ed, have originated in the post-exilian period, when a severely
Rabbinical type of Judaism held sway. Hence he argued

1 “(Ce dernier criterium [les nombreux aramaismes], toutefois, ne doit pas étre
employé sans quelques précautions, lorsqu’il s’agit de déterminer 1’age des différ-
ents écrits de la littérature hébraique. Nous avons déja dit que les plus anciens
fragments de la poésie des Hébreux présentent des aramaismes. Trois ouvrages
du plus grand caractére, le Livre de Job, le Kohéleth et le Cantique des Cantiques,
offrent la contradiction singulitre d’une pensée vraiment antique et d’un style qui
appartient aux plus basses époques. Ces livres décélent une inspiration vive et
une liberté d’esprit presque incompatibles avec les idées étroites et les habitudes
d imitation servile qui régnent chez les Juifs depuis la captivité. Je croirai diffi-
cilement, pour ma part, qu'un poéme philosophique comme celui de Job, une
idylle aussi passionnée que le Cantique des Cantiques, une ceuvre d’un scepticisme
aussi hardi que le Koheleth, aient pu étre composés ἃ une époque de décadence
intellectuelle, ob l’on voit déja percer les petitesses de l’ésprit rabbinique. Avec
leurton dégagé et nullement sacerdotal, leur sagesse toute profane, leur oubli de
Jéhovah, ces ouvrages sont, ἃ mes yeux, des produits de l’époque de Salomon,
moment si libre et si brillant dans histoire du génie hébreu. Peut-étre n’en
possédons-nous qu’une rédaction moderne, ob le style primitif aura été altéré.”—
Renan, Histoire des Langues Sémitigques, livre ii. chap. 1, pp. 130-1.

"2 * Nous essayerons de nous figurer Paul, en ces derniers jours, arrivant 4 re-
connaitre qu’il a usé sa vie pour un réve, repudiant tous les prophétes sacrés pour
un écrit qw’il n’avait guére lu jusque-l, ’Ecclesiaste, livre charmant, le seul livre
aimable qui ait été composé par un juif.”—Renan, ?Aniechrist p. 101. Troisitme
edit. Paris, M. Lévy Fréres, 1873.

11S Luternal evidence against Solomonic Authorship.

that the book was most probably a work of Solomon’s, which
had, however, undergone considerable revision by some later
hand. To this supposed reviser Renan considered the lin-
guistic peculiarities of the work to be mainly due. This
theory, however, has found few supporters, and has been
now abandoned by M. Renan himself, whose matured views
on the authorship and character of the work will be shortly
considered.

The internal evidence afforded by many passages of the
Book of Koheleth itself is against the traditional view. The
epilogue affirms the non-Solomonic authorship of the work.
So far from the author having left himself open to the charge
of being guilty of a “pious fraud,” by writing under the
mask of Solomon, he is not slow to inform his readers that
that king was not the real author of the composition. Solo-
mon is introduced as the speaker throughout the work in the
same way as Cicero in his treatises “On Old Age” and on
“Friendship,” selects Cato the elder as the exponent of his
views, or as Plato in his Dialogues brings forward Socrates.’
Similarly, in the literature of the Old Testament, the writer
of the Book of Job introduces into his magnificent dialogue
that patriarch and his friends as speakers.

The linguistic features which characterise the Book of
Koheleth are incompatible with the theory that Solomon was
its author. Objections may, indeed, be made with an appar-
ent show of reason to some of the examples cited by Delitzsch
in his glossary of linguistic peculiarities. That list contains
nearly one hundred words and forms occurring in the Book

1M, Renan has well remarked in his recent work on Ecclesiastes to the same
effect: ‘*L’auteur n’est donc pas plus un faussaire que Platon ne l’est dans Ze
Parménide ow dans /e Zimde. Voulant nous donner un morceau de philosophie
éléate, Platon choisit Parménide ; voulant nous donner un morceau de philosophie
pythagoricienne, il choisit Timée, et il leur met dans la bouche des discours
conformes aux doctrines de leur école. Ainsi fait notre auteur ; Solomon n’est
pour lui qu’un préte-nom pour des idées qu'il trouve appropriges au type légen-
daire [Ὁ] de l’ancien roi de Jerusalem.” —L’ Ecelésiastey p. 7.

The Lingurstic features of the work. 119

of Koheleth characteristic of an era. οἵ the Hebrew lan-
guage far later than that of Solomon. But objections to
points of detail do not afford a sufficient answer to such an
induction of particulars. The conclusiveness of the argu-
ment does not depend upon the decisive character of any
one or two instances separately considered, but on the cumu-
lative force of all such instances taken together.1 Some of
these words or forms occur only in books of the Old Testa-
ment composed at an era later than that of Solomon; while
others, which do not occur in the whole range of Biblical
literature save in this single book, aré words or phrases of
common use in the Hebrew of the Mishna.?

The attempts hitherto made to meet this philological
difficulty have been unsuccessful. Boehl’s pamphlet on the
Aramaisms of the book is, perhaps, the best treatise on that
point which has appeared in defence of the traditional view.
The Roman Catholic theologians, von Essen and Schafer,
have argued with much ability on the same side. But their
arguments are unsatisfactory. Dr. Pusey’s observations on
the same subject in his Lectures on Daniel the Prophet (third
edit. p. 327), though quoted by Bullock as conclusive, do
not fairly represent the state of the case. Dr. Pusey’s re-

1 In enumerating the instances of words common to the Books of Proverbs,
Canticles and Ecclesiastes as items which ‘collectively establish identity of
authorship,” Mr. Johnston has endeavoured to make use of this argument in his
favour. See his treatise, p. 66, and note our observations on p. 114.

? Mr. Johnston has unfortunately confined himself to the use of the English
translation of Prof. Delitzsch’s Commentary on Canticles and Ecclesiastes, issued
by Messrs. T, & T, Clark of Edinburgh, in 1877. 1 freely acknowledge the ser-
vices Messrs. Clark have rendered to the public by their valuable translation of the
works of many of the great German Divines, But the translation in question has
been executed in a most slovenly manncr. It not. only omits many passages of
the original German, but incorrectly translates it in many places ; and it is partly
owing to this fact that Mr. Johnston has fallen into several serious mistakes. The
translation of the glossary appended by Delitzsch to his work is peculiarly faulty
in. the English edition, Hence I have deemed it necessary to append to the
present work, in Excursus No. 4, a glossary which is based to a considerable
extent on that of Delitzsch.

120 The verdict of Modern Criticism.

marks are, moreover, based on the uncharitable assumption,
that the scholars who have expressed opinions opposed
to the traditional view have been influenced by a personal
dislike of “the doctrine of future judgment and retribution
according to our works,” set forth in the book. This as-
sumption, indeed, is abundantly disproved by the fact that
Hengstenberg, Delitzsch, Zéckler and others, whose ortho-
doxy is beyond suspicion, have felt themselves constrained
to accept the verdict of modern criticism. Scarcely a scholar
of eminence now ventures to dispute this verdict. Notwith-
standing the assertions of Dr. Pusey and Professor Taylor
Lewis of Schenectady, it is impossible to account for the
linguistic characteristics of Koheleth on the principle that
its peculiar phraseology is necessitated by its subject matter.
Bloch’s treatise, short as it is, is on the whole the ablest work
written in defence of the traditional opinion. But even that
scholar has found it necessary to admit the fact that the work
abounds in Aramaisms,! His words are: “It isa truth, that

1 Prof. Given, in his work on the Zruth of Scripture, referred to in note I,
p- 92, has sought to account for the Aramaisms of the book by the following
extraordinary statements. He maintains (pp. 197-8) that Solomon ‘‘by such an
accommodation and approximation to the dialect” of the eastern peoples which
were under his sway, ‘‘ would occupy a vantage ground in securing their attention
to the great subjects, ethical and religious, discussed in this book. He would thus
place himself in full accord with their sympathies, enlist their affections, and
make his most effective appeals to both head and heart. The Book of Ecclesiastes
would thus be a great missionary manifesto to the heathen inhabitants of those
lands, Amid all the perplexities that embarrass human life, and all the dissatis-
faction attendant on human pursuits, it would acquaint them with the living God
as the true source and centre of all real happiness. “It is no small confirmation of
this view that God is not presented under the designation of Jehovah, the name
by which he was known in his covenant relation to Israel, but as A/ohim, the
God of all the nations and peoples that call upon His name.” Τῇ the above had
been written by one who was only a popular preacher, it might be passed over in
silence, but Dr. Given is a Professor of Hebrew, and ought to know better.
The linguistic features of Koheleth are not such as to render the book useful in the
way suggested. Though the Hebrew is more modern than the age of Solomon,
it is very far from being Aramaic. The Aramaisms found in the work are
indications of date, but could not have been designedly made use of by the writer
in order to render his book popular among Aramaic-speaking peoples. It is

Grammatical peculiarities of the work, 1521

no one can ever get rid of who has a feeling for linguistic
peculiarities, that this book has throughout an Aramaic
colouring” (p. 124). Bloch seeks to reconcile this fact with
the hypothesis of the Solomonic authorship by assuming,
not unlike M. Renan in his former work, that such late
words and forms are owing to copyists who introduced
considerable interpolations into the work of Solomon. For,
while that scholar defends the unity of the work as a whole,
he maintains that words and passages have been added
to it in later times. The epilogue he views as such an
interpolation, though not by any means the only one to be
found in the book. Such views appear to us arbitrary,
while they are utterly unsupported by any evidence what-
ever,

In Excursus, No. 4, certain peculiarities of grammar will
be found noticed in detail, conducting to the same con-
clusion at which modern criticism has arrived. The most
characteristic of these are certain verbal inflexions and the
unfrequent use of several forms of mood of the verb which are
of common occurrence in the more ancient language. The
very fact that only three instances occur in the entire book
of the use of the imperfect with strong vav (the so-called
“vav conversive,” or “vav consccutive”), while instances of
the perfect with simple vav abound, is in itself strongly
characteristic of a late date of Hebrew literature. The very
opposite usage would have been expected in a work of the
Solomonic age. Mr. Johnston has bravely, but in vain,
sought to account for these phenomena, as well as for the
absurd to speak of Ecclesiastes as a ‘‘ missionary. manifesto.” A book which
contains no allusion whatever to idolatry could never have been designed for mis-
sionary purposes ; for which, for many other reasons, it is manifestly unsuited.
Nor can the book have been designed primarily to teach that God is ‘‘the true
source and centre of all real happiness.” Such statements only do harm to the
cause they are intended to advance.

1 Bloch considers chap. xi. 9 ὁ as another such interpolation. Luzzatto has
propounded similar views in reference to chap. xii. 1; 7. See Bloch, p. 127.

122 Oppressions of the people noticed by Koheleth.

peculiar use of the personal pronouns, and of the relative,
on principles favourable to the traditional view.

Knobel and other critics have maintained that the dark
picture of human life presented in the pages of Ecclesiastes
is inconsistent with the theory that the book was written by
Solomon. Such gloomy views do not harmonize at all with
the description of the Solomonic age given by the writer of
1 Kings, where the people are spoken of as eating, drinking,
and making merry (1 Kings iv. 20), and his reign is depicted
as a time in which Judah and Israel “dwelt safely, every man
under his vine and under his fig-tree, from Dan even to Beer-
sheba, all the days of Solomon” (1 Kings iv. 25).

It is, no doubt, quite true that there was a dark side to the
bright picture of peace and prosperity. Even in the lifetime
of Solomon there were not a few premonitory symptoms of
that great national schism which occurred in the days of
his successor. The magnificence and luxury of his court
and the enormous works which he carried on in all parts
of his kingdom entailed a heavy burden on his subjects.’
The forced labour which was required in order to effect such
results was peculiarly irksome to a people accustomed to
greater liberty, and the taxation necessary to pay for such
gigantic operations could not under any circumstances have
been long borne by the Israelites. There must have becn
no doubt considerable oppression, especially in remote parts
of the kingdom, and the heavy taxation was one.of the chief
causes of the great rebellion which broke out immediately
after Solomon’s death, and led to the establishment of the
independent kingdom of Israel.

This state of things, even in the reign of that monarch, was
in all probability considerably aggravated by the number of

1 It is strange that the Books of the Kings and Chronicles give only scanty
notices of the real history of the time of Solomon, while they contain detailed
accounts of the events which occurred in the reign of David.

The tyranny practised in Solomon's days. 123

foreign wives which he had, who exercised no little influence
for ill over the mind of the king, The erection of temples
and shrines to the foreign gods which they worshipped gave,
no doubt, deep offence, not merely to the priests and the
prophets, but also to large numbers of the people. The
existence of a royal harem has ever been a fertile source of
evil in every country which is cursed by such an institution.
In Solomon’s later years it must have resulted in much
oppression, and in the perversion of justice throughout the
land. For it is only natural to suppose-that the government
must by degrees have fallen into the hands of his concubines
and their favourites. The legend of the Midrash, based
though it be on a misinterpretation of several passages, is
not far from the truth when it states that Solomon fell from
the height of his glory by several successive stages. He
was first the mighty ruler of a vast empire, but that empire
was so diminished that he was king only over Israel (Prov.
i. 1); and afterwards his kingdom was further reduced so
that he reigned only over Jerusalem (Koh. i. 12). Finally
he was acknowledged as king only over his own house,
and there had not rule even over his own bed, but was in
constant dread of evil spirits.1

The statements which occur in the Book of Ecclesiastes
concerning the oppression of the people by those in authority,
and the lament of the writer that the past was better than
the present (vii. 10), are supposed by some to be the natural
reflections of Solomon as he pondered over the state of his
kingdom in the closing years of his life.2 The Midrash Kohe-

1 Afidrash Shir-ha-shirim, i. 1 and iii. 8.

3 It is strange that Professor Taylor Lewis, in his edition of Zéckler’s Com-
mentary in the American edition of Lange’s Bidelwerk p. 28, could write that the
Book of Ecclesiastes ‘‘is just such a series of meditations as the history of that
monarch would lead us to ascribe to him in his old age, after his experience of the
vanity of life in its best earthly estate, and that repentance for his misuse of God's
gifts, in serving his own pleasure, which would séem most natural to his con-
dition.” What verse of the book can be honestly considered as breathing the
language of repentance ?

124 No penitential confession in Koheleth.

leth (chap. i. 12) represents Solomon as there exclaiming as
he looked back upon the glories of the earlier part ‘of his
reign: “I was, when I was, but now I am no more.” But
the complaints against unrighteous government found in the
Book of Ecclesiastes are evidently penned by one who had
himself writhed under such injustice, and cannot with any
propriety be regarded as proceeding from the ruler who could
have put a stop to such tyranny and wrong. The remark
of Jahn (Linleitung, ii. p. 849) must commend itself to every
thoughtful student. “Solomon,” observes that critic, ‘ could
scarcely complain so bitterly concerning oppressions, the
unrighteous acts of judges, and the elevation of fools and
slaves to high honours, to the neglect of the rich and the
noble, unless he had wished to write a satire on himself.”
Had he been desirous of writing a penitential confession of
his own shortcomings and misdoings he must have expressed
himself in a very different strain. In such a case the lan-
guage of the book would have been more akin to that of
David in the fifty-first Psalm, and the book would have
contained some allusion to the sin of idolatry into which
he fell, possibly through a desire to prove his large-hearted
liberality and to conciliate his foreign wives.

Bloch gives an ingenious, if not satisfactory answer to this
last objection. He maintains that in a book like Koheleth
—which consists of a series of sorrowful reflections upon the
deficiencies of human life, lamentations over the discord-
ances of nature and spirit, and painful declarations con-
cerning the unsatisfying character of all earthly things, and
the nothingness of all happiness—a condemnation of idolatry
would have been altogether out of place (p. 58).

We have only glanced at a few points of the evidence
derivable from an examination of the contents of the book
itself. The more deeply the matter is investigated the
stronger does the internal evidence against the Solomonic

Date pointed to by internal evidence. τῶ,

authorship appear. Though much may indeed be urged in
support of the view that the misery and oppression of Israel
in the latter days of king Solomon were grievous, the details
of the tyranny and violence given in the Book of Eccle-
siastes do not suit that period, while they vividly represent
the state of affairs at the time when the Jews groaned under
the yoke of their Persian and Grecian oppressors. The
doctrine concerning submission to unjust decrees and the
absolute authority of the prince was of prime importance
under the circumstances of that trying period.

All such considerations, indeed, would not be decisive,
if positive proof could be brought forward in favour of the
Solomonic authorship. But such evidence is not forthcoming.
That tradition should have all but unanimously ascribed the
composition of the work to Solomon is exactly what might
have been expected from the fact that. the book was written
in the name of that monarch, and represents him throughout
as the speaker.

The English defenders of the traditional view of the author-
ship of the Book of Ecclesiastes, inclusive of Mr. Johnston
(industrious though he has proved himself to be), have in our
opinion passed over without fair examination the real argu-
ments against that theory, although long since presented in a
convenient form at the close of Ginsburg’s valuable introduc-
tion to his Historical and Critical Commentary on the book.

In the present state of critical opinion with regard to the
Book of Ecclesiastes, it is unnecessary to combat the old
arguments (long since refuted) against the unity of the book.
But it is quite possible that the work. may contain here and
there fragments of earlier writings or poems, as Renan and
others are disposed to maintain. The arguments in favour
of the genuineness of the epilogue have been already briefly
noticed.

M. Renan’s recent “Study” on Ecclesiastes, has not

126 Renans matured views on Lcclestastes.

thrown that light upon the age and the character of the
book which might have been expected from a scholar of his
celebrity. The Song of Songs and the Book of Koheleth
are in his view, a few “ profane pages” which by some curious
accident have found their way into that “strange and admir-
able” volume which is termed the Bible. These two books
were, according to Renan (who in this particular has adopted
the views of Graetz), first introduced into the Jewish Canon
at the Synod of Jamnia (see p. 15). But the Jewish doctors
understood neither the one book nor the other, for, had they
done so, they would not have inserted such compositions in
the collection of Sacred Writings. It was their stupidity that
made them “able to make out of a dialogue of love a book
of edification, and out of a sceptical book a book of sacred
philosophy.” For the Canticles and Koheleth are just “ like
a love-ditty and a little essay of Voltaire which have gone
astray among the folios of a theological library.” +

On the question of the antiquity of the Book of Ecclesiastes,
Renan has widely departed from his former views (see p. 117),
inasmuch as he now maintains that Ecclesiastes must be
“certainly reckoned among the more modern books of the
Hebrew literature,” and that its very language proves it to be
a modern work. For, although the language is but slightly
tinged with Aramaisms, Koheleth is of. all the Biblical books
the. one “most akin to the Talmud.” He notes, however,
at the same time that some have attempted to prove that the
author's work exhibits traces of the influence of the Greek
philosophy. “Nothing is less certain. Everything absolutely
explains itself in this book by the logical development
of Jewish thought. The author is very probably of a later
date than Epicurus ; it seems indeed that he did not receive
a Greek education. His style is in the first place, Shemitic.
In all his language there is not a Greek word, not a charac-

1 Renan, ?£cclésiaste, pp. 1, 67, 41.

fTts conjecture as to the term Koheleth, 127

teristic Hellenism. On the other hand he is far from pushing
so far as Epicurus the radical negation of Providence, and the
principle of the indifference of the gods in regard to human
affairs,” ?

The author of the Book of Ecclesiastes, according to M.
Renan, never intended his work to be regarded as a production
of Solomon, It must not by any means be classed among
the apocryphal writings of later days, whose authors, in
order to secure a more wide acceptance of their opinions,
endeavoured to palm off their works as productions of well-
known personages of ancient times. The statements made
in the epilogue to Ecclesiastes are, in M. Renan’s opinion,
decisive against the theory of the Solomonic authorship of
that work.

While fully admitting the fact that Koheleth is used as a
sort of “symbolical name” for Solomon, M. Renan expresses
himself dissatisfied with the explanations of that name
hitherto suggested by scholars. He considers it probable
that the letters which form that word (K,h,],t) may have been
the initials of words, which initials were formed into a proper
name,? as in the Middle Ages the great Jewish scholar
Maimonides received the appellation of Rambam, a name
composed of the initial consonants of his own name and
title (Rabbi Moses ben Maimon); or as Rabbi Solomon
Isaac (R. Shelomo Yizhaki) was similarly known by the
designation of Rashi? M. Renan considers the words whose

1 See δ᾽ Ecclésiaste pp. 52, 53, and 63.

3 Professor Strack has informed me that De Lagarde has attempted to discover
in the beginning of Psalm xxv. 22 a reference to the proper name 28775, Num.
xxxiv. 28, and similarly in the opening words of Psalm xxxiv. 23 an allusion to the
ordinary proper name 78, Pedaiah. But no such references to proper names
can be proved to exist in ‘the Bible,

8. Μ, Renan refers also to the mystic alphabet known as the A¢hdash, wherein
the first letter of the Hebrew alphabet was expressed by the last, the second letter
by the penultimate and so forth, 8 being substituted for M and 3 for & and vice
versa. Jeremiah is supposed to have made use of this device when he designated

128 Renan on the object of the Book.

initials were thus united in the xom de plume of Koheleth are
now unknown, so that his suggestion has cast no light what-
ever upon the supposed difficulty. It may prove fruitful in
opening a door to fanciful interpretations on the part of in-
genious scholars. There is not, however, the slightest founda-
tion on which one might fairly base such a conjecture. For
the name Koheleth can be so easily explained (vid. p. 84), that
there is no real ground to consider it as an enigma yet unsolved.

Though M. Renan considers the title of the book
enigmatical, he regards its object as plain and simple. The
book he observes, has been generally considered as one
of the most obscure in the Bible. Theologians for dogmat-
ical purposes have endeavoured to darken its real signifi-
cance. Its gencral import and character are perfectly clear,
though there are a few difficulties to be found here and
there. The author teaches that “all is vanity,” for the world
presents a series of phenomena which constantly recur, and
there is no progress to be observed anywhere. “The past has
been like the present, the present is like that which is to come.
The present is bad, the past has not been better, and the
future will not be preferable. Every attempt to ameliorate
human affairs is chimerical.” “Crime is undoubtedly a folly,
but wisdom and piety are not recompensed, The villain is
honoured as the virtuous ought to be. The virtuous man is
overwhelmed with misfortunes which ought by right to fall
upon the villain.” Society is quite out of course, kings are
egotistical and bad, judges are unjust, the people ungrateful.
What then is the only practical wisdom? One _ should, if

Babylon (533) by Sheshach (ἼΣ Εὖ), Jer. xxv. 26; and the Casdim (2 183},
or Chaldwans, are possibly referred to by the words "DP 20 (rendered in our
A.V. by ‘in the midst of them that rise up against me”) in Jer. li. 1. But these
instances of A¢héash cannot be relied on with certainty. For, as Prof. Friedrich
Delitzsch has pointed out in his very able work Wo /ag das Paradies ? (Leipzig 1881)
p- 215, Shésh-hu appears to have been originally a designation of one part of
Babylon, The second instance of this usage referred to is also open to doubt.

His attempted portrait of the Writer. 129

possible, quietly endeavour to enjoy the fortune which may be
acquired by toil, and to live happily with a wife whom he has
loved when young. One should seek to avoid excesses of every
kind. It is vain to imagine that by any efforts of our own
we shall be able to triumph over destiny. But it is dangerous
to abandon oneself to folly, for sensuality is always punished ;
the man who is very rich is weighed down by anxiety ; but it is
well, on the other hand, to avoid poverty, for the poor man is
despised. In order to live a quiet life one must not run counter
to the prejudices of the world, must not fight against them, or
seek to reform mankind. The wise man will be a practical
philosopher; seeking to follow the just mean, he will be
“without zeal, without mysticism.” The writer of the Book
of Koheleth, whose views M. Renan thus summarises, was
“a worthy man, devoid of prejudices, good and generous at
bottom, but discouraged by the baseness of the time and the
sad conditions of human life.” “He would willingly be a hero,
but, verily, God rewards heroism so little, that one asks one-
self if it is not going against His intentions to take up things
in that manner.”

Such is the *charming” portrait of the writer of the Book of
Ecclesiastes as delineated by the pen of the French writer. A
more selfish, mean-spirited and contemptible character could
scarcely be described, one more dead to all the loftier aspi-
rations of humanity, or more regardless of its bitter sorrows,
provided only he might be able himself quietly to enjoy a
moderate fortune! The portrait which M. Renan has painted
is not a real likeness ; it is a caricature.

Koheleth was, indeed, according to him, no atheist.
He believed in the existence of a God who occasionally
interposed in the affairs of the world. But the God of his
creed was one who was too great to concern Himself deeply
with human actions in general. God occasionally punishes
men for their crimes. Hence it is a matter only of simple

K

130 Renan on the religion of Koheleth.

prudence to abstain from crimes of a gross character. For
in certain well-defined cases punishment for sin is a sort of
natural law. The principles on which God acts are utterly
incomprehensible to man. The religion which Koheleth,
as explained by M. Renan, inculcates is a religion without
zeal, without love, “without excess.” Devotees are the most
unbearable blockheads. “The impious man is a fool; he
defies God, he exposes himself to the most terrible danger,
but the pietist is a simpleton who wearics God with his
prayers, and displeases Him while he imagines that he
honours Him.”

Renan’s views of the various passages in the book in which
reference is made to the state of the dead will be noticed
elsewhere. Koheleth was (according to his conception of his
character) not a man who like the patriarch Job would burst
forth into indignant complaint against the Most High. He
was of a more phlegmatic disposition. “It is so useless” to
trouble oneself about such matters. He had learned to take
things more quietly. He had no hopes of a coming Messiah,
no belief in a resurrection of the dead, no pride in the history
of his own people. He had no patriotism. His idea was,
that his bodily frame would be dissolved at death, and then he
would exist no more. Why then should he give himself any
unnecessary trouble? Others might fancy, with the prophets
of old, that at a future period there would be a reign of justice
on.the earth. Not so our enlightened and “ charming” writer.
He believed that the day of Jahaveh would never come. God
would never leave heaven to reign on earth. For himself,
Kohelcth only desired to live in peace; to enjoy the fortune
he had honestly obtained, He knew old age was coming on,
and that death would inevitably follow, but he would wait
quietly until it came, and meanwhile amuse himself with
describing it in witty phraseology. “The fine and voluptuous
temperament of our author shows us that he had many an

Koheleth a mere “man of the world.” 121

inward sweetness wherewith to console himself for his pes-
simist philosophy. Like all the pessimists of talent he loved
life; the idea of suicide, which at one time crossed the mind
of Job [Job vii. 15; but qu.?] in view of the abuses of
the world, did not for a moment enter into his thoughts
(ὦ Ecclésiaste, p. 40).

The chief interest which the Book of Ecclesiastes, according
to this critic, possesses, is, that it is the only book which
presents us with a picture of an intellectual and moral po-
sition which must have been that of a large number of the
Jews. The book is a rarity. It contains the only pages of
sang-froid to be found in the gloomy volume of the Scrip-
tures. The author was a man of the world, he was not a
pious man or a theologian. One might almost imagine he
had never known the Torah, and if he had read “the
prophets, those furious tribunes of justice,” he had imbibed
very little of their spirit. He did not believe in the victory
of godliness for the world would never be better than it is,
The Sadducees, who did not believe in angels or spirits or in
a resurrection, those followers of Boethus, who were almost
synonymous with the Epicureans, “all that rich aristocracy
of the priests of Jerusalem who lived of the Temple, and
whose religious coolness irritated so strongly Jesus and the
founders of Christianity, were in reality the intellectual
brethren of our author.”! As M. Renan observes in another
place: “the author was perhaps some great grandfather of
Annas or of Caiaphas, of the aristocratic priests who with
so light a heart condemned Jesus.”

The bad taste which directed these last remarks needs no
comment on our part. But such, according to M. Renan, was

1 L’£eclésiaste, pp. 50, 62. M. Renan observes, ‘‘the true commentary on
Koheleth is to be found in Books xii. and xiii. of the Avtiguities of Josephus,
that tissue of crimes and of baseness, which especially about 200 B.c, and a little
earlier than that time, made up the history of Palestine.” P. 59.

132 Koheleth pictured as a “ Modern Jew.”

the author who has bequeathed to posterity one of the most
charming books of antiquity (ὦ Ecclésiaste, Ὁ. 85)!

What pleases M. Renan especially in the Book of Koheleth
is the personality of the author. “ No one was ever more
natural or more simple. His egoism is so frankly avowed
that it ceases to shock us. He certainly was an amiable
man. I would have had a thousand times more confidence
in him than in all the Hasidim1 of his contemporaries. The
good nature of the sceptic is the most solid of all; it rests
upon a profound feeling of the supreme truth, V7 expedit.”
It is in consequence of this that Koheleth is a book so
profoundly modern. The pessimism of our day finds there
its finest expression. The author appears like a resigned
Schopenhauer, very superior to that one whom a bad stroke
of fortune forced to live at German ¢adles @héte.”? “One
loves to picture him to oneself as-an exquisite man and one
of polished manners, as an ancestor of some rich Jew of Paris
gone astray in Judza in the time of Jesus and the Mac-
cabees.” In fact, the best representative one can have of the
author of Ecclesiastes is “the modern Jew,” as he appears in
some of the great commercial cities of Europe. From Ko-
heleth to Heinrich Heine, there is, according to Renan, only
a step. When one compares him with the prophets of Israel
one has some difficulty to understand how the same race
could have produced characters so essentially different.

Such is the description of Koheleth presented to us
by the French savant. M. Renan’s eminence as a scholar
renders it impossible to pass his work over in silence. He
has unquestionably seized upon, and painted in striking
colours, some of the more salient features of the book, but

1 The Hasidim, or ¢he pious, ‘ puritans,” were the party of the orthodox Jews
whose fiery zeal is spoken of in the First Book of the Maccabees. Our English
version has transcribed the word there by ‘‘ Assideans.”

2 In M. Renan’s article in the Revue des Deux Mondes for Feb., 1882, he
speaks of “ les brasseries allemandes,” the German beer-houscs.

Dean Plumptre's Biography of Koheleth. 133

he has altogether failed to comprehend its deeper meaning.
As an article, M. Renan’s essay may be deemed brilliant ;
but, judged as a contribution towards the understanding of
the book, his “ Study” is of little value, and must be charac-
terized as flippant.

It may be interesting to notice here an attempt more
reverent, though scarcely more successful, on the part of an
English scholar to solve the mystery. which enwraps the
writer of Ecclesiastes. Dissatisfied with the efforts of former
commentators, Professor, now Dean, Plumptre, first tenta-
tively in his article in Swth’s Biblical Dictionary, then in
the pages of the Expositor for 1880, and still later in his
edition of Ecclesiastes with Notes (1881), has struck out for
himself a new and ingenious line of interpretation.

He regards the book as of the nature of an autobio-
graphical confession, in some places distinctly, in others
unconsciously revealing itself beneath the veil assumed by
the author.

According to Dean Plumptre, Koheleth lived in Judaa
about B.C. 220; not far from the city of Jerusalem, the road
to which was often traversed by him. He was trained up as
a child in the school attached to the synagogue of his native
village, at a time when religion had become in general
merely an empty form. In that synagogue school the boy
learned to regard with reverence and affection the memory
of the wise king, Solomon. His parents were wealthy,
though the boy was from early years trained up to agri-
culture. Koheleth’s mother was unfortunately one who left
her son “no memory of a true pattern of womanhood for
him to reverence and love.” The young man was not long
before he saw through the emptiness and hypocrisy of
the religion current in his day, marked as it was with long-
winded prayers, easily made and soon forgotten vows, and
a superstitious regard for dreams. He by and by travelled

134 Plumptre's “tdeal biography” of Koheleth

into other lands, and in the course of his wanderings settled
in Alexandria. There he lived for a considerable time under
the yoke of a despotic government. He observed the
oppression of the masses, and the artifices adopted by men
who aspired to power and place. His wealth led him to
indulge in all kinds of sensual pleasure and permitted him
to gratify a taste for luxury and magnificence. In his
wildest excesses his wisdom preserved him from utter ruin.
He however, soon, learned to question the reality of a life
beyond the grave, in which in earlier days he had been a
believer.

During his stay in Alexandria, Koheleth met with one
who proved in very deed to be a true friend, “one among
a thousand.” This friendship kept him in his darkest hours
from abandoning himself to despair. For he had also a
bitter experience of another kind. He imbibed a passionate
affection for a beautiful woman whose utter baseness he
discovered barely in time to escape from her net. Hence
his strong denunciation of the female sex in the pages of
his work. To solace himself for his bitter disappointment,
Koheleth turned to the contemplation οὗ art, and afterwards
to the study of Greek philosophy. He was peculiarly drawn
towards the philosophical schools of the Epicureans and the
Stoics, The natural science and physiology of the former
attracted a mind eager for knowledge. In chaps. xi. and xii.
of his book he exhibits more than an ordinary acquaintance
with the anatomy and construction of the human frame.
But in both these schools of philosophy, while he found some-
thing to attract, he found still more to repel. They could
not solve the mystery of human life. The old faith of the
Jew revived at last in a purer form within his heart, and
experience had taught him lessons of. wisdom. His course
of life for a while was more cheerful than before, and he came
forward as a debater in the philosophic schools, But, like

Not the result of sober Critictsm. 135

many others, Koheleth had to pay the penalty of ‘his former
life of dissipation, and premature old age weakened his
frame. After a long and painful illness he had time to
reflect on the past, and became a firm believer in a personal
God and a personal immortality. In old age he learned
to wait for death with calm trustfulness in the God who
was above, and the thought of returning to his Maker sup-
ported him in the contemplation of the tomb. “It was in
this stage of mental and spiritual growth, of strength growing
out of weakness, that he was led to become a writer, and
to put on record the results of his experience. He still
thought in the language of his fatherland, and therefore in
that language he wrote ‘the Book of Ecclesiastes.’”

Thus does the learned Professor construct an interesting
novel from indications supposed to be given in the course
of our author's reflections. But what may not be constructed
out of the most unlikely material by a similar display of
ingenuity? If one is at liberty first to disconnect sentences
from their natural position, and then to piece them together
again, chipping off inconvenient corners, and filling up the
gaps with imaginary details, what kind of a tesselated mosaic
may not be formed? Such patchwork can scarcely be re-
garded as the honest result of sober criticism. For, whatever
may have been the position in life of our author, if Solomon
was to be brought forward by him in his book as the spokes-
man of his -sentiments, the wealth, riches, and magnificent
works of that monarch had of necessity to be mentioned.
Nay more, as it was impossible to avoid making some refer-
ence under the circumstances to Solomon’s enormous harem,
the remark of the writer on the female sex (chap. vii. 28),
especially in the connexion in which it stands, utterly loses
the significance with which Professor Plumptre seeks to in-
vest it.

But we must of necessity draw our remarks to a close.

136 Probable date of Koheleth.

We have in previous chapters pointed out that the Book
of Ben Sira and the Book of Wisdom presuppose the
existence of the Book of Ecclesiastes. We may thus con-
clude with tolerable certainty that the work itself could
not have been composed later than’ B.c. 250. But if, as
we have seen reason to believe, “the men of the Great
Synagogue” were those who admitted the work into the
Canon, it must have been written some time between B.C.
444 and 328. The internal evidence makes it likely that
it was towards the close of this period that the author lived.
The simple reason why no more definite date can be assigned
is, as mentioned elsewhere, that Jewish history is almost a
blank from the death of Nehemiah (about B.c. 415) down
to the accession of Antiochus Epiphanes in Β.Ο, 175. The
annals of the Persian empire, too, are very deficient from
the death of Xerxes in B.c. 465 down to the appearance of
Alexander the Great on the stage of history. But, ere the
Persian empire was finally broken up, Koheleth, who in
some respects may be considered as the last of the Hebrew
prophets, had appeared, and his work had been recognised by
the ecclesiastical leaders of the Jewish nation as worthy to be
inserted among their sacred writings, as bearing on its brow,
however difficult some of its statements may be to us to
comprehend, the unmistakable impress of Divine inspiration.

In speaking of Koheleth as the last of the Hebrew prophets
of the Old Testament, we, of course, use that term not in
the signification attached to it in the popular mind, but in
the proper sense of the Hebrew word, namely, one who
announces the Divine will. There are, indeed, in the Book
of Ecclesiastes no passages which can: in any proper sense
be termed Messianic—though Hahn has attempted to point
out some such! The Messianic expectations of the Jewish

1 For instance, chap. iv. 13 ff. and chap. v. 7, 8. But his interpretation of
these passages cannot be sustained. See our Crit. Comm.

Koheleth, the last of the Hebrew prophets. 137

people seem in Koheleth’s days to have been at the lowest
point. It was not his mission to revive those waning hopes.
The appointed time for that had not yet fully come. The
age in which he lived was one of restlessness of thought,
and of that kind which often precedes an age of action, of
that general uneasiness of feeling which is a premonitory
symptom of some coming storm. There were daring spirits
who, perplexed with mysteries they could not comprehend,
were inclined to cast aside altogether the yoke of religion ;
and others, who, sullenly dissatisfied with their earthly lot,
were disinclined:to make the best use of the good things
within their grasp, and disposed at the same time to dash
impatiently aside as vain and deceptive the solace presented
by the thought of a life beyond the grave. The restlessness
of the age was fully shared in by Koheleth, and he does not
scruple to express in the boldest terms his feeling of the
vanity of life. He was far, however, from abandoning himself
to utter sadness or despair. He thought that it was man’s
duty to enjoy the gifts of God, to fear God, and keep His
commandments. Heine has somewhere styled the book
“the Song of Scepticism,” but, as Delitzsch observes, it would
be more correctly termed “the Song of the Fear of God.”
Throughout his work Koheleth holds fast his faith in the
eternal. He never loses himself in the abyss of atheism.
His belief in God, in a judgment to come, in the final victory
of goodness, comes forth ever and anon distinct and clear.
The book was, as already observed, in many ways a
preparation for the Gospel of Jesus Christ. It pointed out
man’s sin and helplessness, the vanity of his best estate and
the darkness that enwrapped the tomb. In contrast with its
teachings the surpassing glory of the New Testament revela-
tion is more clearly seen, for the latter tells of One who has
abolished death and brought life and immortality to light
by His Gospel. Much of the advice given in the Book of

138 Lvoheleth on future blessedness.

Koheleth indeed might be summed up in Apostolic aphor-
isms, such as; “ See that ye walk circumspectly, not as fools,
but as wise, redeeming the time because the days are evil.”
“Rejoice in the Lord, and again I say, rejoice.” It is not
granted to man as such to know the secrets of the life that is
to.come: the keys of that unseen world and of death are in
the hands of the Crucified and Risen Redeemer, But Kohe-
leth saw into the mystery, as far as it was possible under the
circumstances in which he was placed ; and his conclusion on
this point is well expressed in chap. viii. 12: “I know surely
that it shall be well with them that fear God.”

CHAPTER, Vi.

THE PESSIMISM OF THE BOOK OF KOHELETH
AND THAT OF SCHOPENHAUER AND VON
HARTMANN.

139

CHAPTER VI.

The unique character of Book of Koheleth, 141—The work pervaded by a pessi-
mistic tone, 141—The meaning of the phrase “under the sun,” 142—The
uniformity of nature depressing, 143—The unsatisfactory character of the search
after wisdom, 145—Solomon as a philosophical investigator, 145—Advantages
of wisdom in common life, 147—Vanity of riches, 148—Corruption of magis-
trates and rulers, 149—Koheleth’s commendation of the day of man’s death,
150—The cause for such a commendation, 151—Pessimists before Schopen-
hauer, 152—Schopenhauer and von Hartmann, 152—Natural temperament of
Schopenhauer, 153—Sully on ‘‘unreasoned pessimism,” 153—Principles of
Schopenhauer’s philosophy, 155—von Hartmann on ‘‘unconscious will,” 155
—* Will” identified with ‘‘desire,” 157—‘‘ The will to live” a curse, 158—
Koheleth claimed by the Pessimists, 158—-Venetianer’s description of the
results of Pessimism, 159—von Hartmann’s three stages of illusion, 159—
Schopenhauer’s abuse of the Jews, 160—Pessimist doctrines conduct to ascetic-
ism and suicide, 161—Schopenhauer’s attempt to deny this, his extraordinary
views, 162—Taubert’s reference to suicide, 163—Taubert on Koheleth, 164—
The doctrines of Koheleth opposed to those of modern Pessimists, 164—Pessi-
mism and the socialistic movement, 165—Inconsistencies of Pessimist philo-
sophers, 166—The natural results of Pessimism, 167—Schopenhauer’s explana-
tion of the passion of love, 168—Results of such teaching, 169~—-Polygamy and
monogamy, 170—Schopenhauer’s apology for sodomy, 170—Rapid progress of
Pessimism, 171—Pessimism and modern science, 171—Points of truth in Pes-
simism, 171—Resemblance to Buddhism, 172—Inferiority to Buddhism as a
moral system, 173—The Buddhist doctrine of Nirvana, 173, 182—Buddhism
selfish in its aims, 175—Charge of selfishness bronght against Christianity, 176
—Christianity and Pessimism, 177—Optimistic and pessimistic features of
Christianity, 179—Selfishness of the new Philosophy, 181—Practical failure of
Buddhism, 182.

140

CHAPTER VI.

THE PESSIMISM OF THE BOOK OF KOHELETH AND THAT
OF SCHOPENHAUER AND VON HARTMANN,

THE Book of Koheleth is unique in the whole range of
Biblical literature. There is no other book among all the
Sacred Writings with which it can properly be compared.
If, in the prominence it assigns to “wisdom,” and in the use
it makes of aphorisms, it has certain features in common with
the Book of Proverbs, the general structure and design of the
two are entirely dissimilar. Few works can be at all fairly
judged by isolated passages considered apart from their
context, and none have been more unfairly treated in this
respect than the Book of Ecclesiastes.. It is not at all sur-
prising, therefore, to find that its writer has often been
regarded as a sceptic, not only in the good sense of the
term, that is, asa bold and impartial seeker after truth, but
in its more objectionable signification, Nor is it, perhaps,
strange that it should have been appealed to by several
writers belonging to the school of Modern Pessimism
as a work which, though received into the Old Testament
Canon, sets forth substantially several of the most startling
tenets of that new philosophy.

It is, indeed, undeniable that the Book of Ecclesiastes is
pervaded by a kind of gloom, and distinguished by a pessi-
mistic tone peculiar to itself. Inasmuch, too, as this har-
monised with the feelings of Schopenhauer, the founder of
the school of philosophy to which reference has been made,

14d

142 The gloomy tone of the work.

its writer has been designated by him as “the genial, philo-
sophical Koheleth.” 1

The book opens and closes (for the epilogue may here be
left out of consideration) with the words: “ Vanity of vanities,
saith Koheleth, all is vanity.” The clause “all is vanity,”
occurs also in other passages (chaps. i. 14; ii. 11; iii. 19; xi. 8;
and, slightly modified, in chap. xi. 8). The phrase “this also
is vanity” is even more frequent.2 As the writer noted how
man obtains no certain benefit on earth in return for all his
toil and trouble, and as one phase after another of the vanity
of human life passed successively in review before his mind,
he uttered again and again the same piercing cry, “all is
vanity and a striving after wind.”

An American commentator maintains that the key to the
meaning of the writer lies in the oft-recurring expression
“under the sun,” in which there is a mental contrast in-
tended to be drawn between the rewards of toil expended
on the things of time, and “the rewards of another world.”
According to this commentator the book was designed to
answer the question: “ What advantage is there in this life
irrespective of another? What advantage has this life with-
out another life?” The treatise is thus regarded as an argu-
ment, ‘for a God, for immortality, and for future rewards.” ὃ

Very little consideration is required in order to show that
such an interpretation is not warranted by the contents of
the work. The most cursory examination of the numerous
passages in which the phrase “under the sun” occurs, is
quite sufficient to prove that our author never intended to

' Or, ‘‘the Jewish but so philosophical Koheleth,’’ Schopenhauer, JI %/¢ als
Wille «. Vorstelluny, Band iii. p. 731. See also Venetianer, Schopenhauer als
Scholastiker, p. 273. Ε

2 So in chaps. i. 15, 19, 21, 233 ii. 26; iv. 4, 8, 16; v. 10; vi. 2, 93 vii. 63
viii, 10, 14.

3.4 Commentary on the Book of Ecclesiastes by the Rev. Loyal Young, D.D.,
with Introductory Notices by the Rev. Prof. McGill, D.D., Princeton, and Rev,
Prof. Jacobus, D.D. Philadelphia; Presbyterian Board of Education, 1865.

The writer offended by the uniformity of Nature. 143

contrast the state of things ‘‘under the sun,” with those
things which belong to “another or a future life.”

There is some truth in the remark of Schopenhauer, that a
man cannot fully understand the second verse of Koheleth
until he has reached the age of seventy. It is then that
the feeling of the vanity of all earthly things is experienced
in its keenness. There are, however, circumstances which
may cause the vanity and melancholy of earthly existence to
come home at any age with a crushing power to a human
soul, especially if it has not learned to seek consolation from
above.

The impressions made upon men’s minds by the things
of nature depend in a great measure upon the state of
mind of the beholder. A melancholy spirit naturally sees
everything through a distorted medium. “Optimism and
pessimism,” as a philosopher of the present day observes,
“have their deepest psychological roots in differences of
sensibility,” though he carefully adds that “these are not the
only internal factors. Other mental influences co-operate to
turn the judgment in this or that direction.”2 Though man,
as at present organised, is dependent in a great measure on
his bodily organs and conditioned by them, there are other
forces which must also be taken into account; and intellectual,
moral and spiritual influences have no unimportant part to
play in the formation of the opinions of an individual.

The writer of the Book of Ecclesiastes represents Solomon
in his opening verses as offended by the uniformity every-
where exhibited in nature. In doing so, he shows an accurate
knowledge of human character. Solomon in his old age,
“sated and weary,” had, to use the language of Cox, “large
experience of life, had tried its ambitions, its lusts, its plea-

1 See our Crit. Comm. on chap. i. 3.
2 Sully, Pessimism: A History and a Criticism. HH. 5. King & Co., London,
1877.

144 Depressing effect of the uniformity of Nature.

sures; he had tested every promise of good which it held
forth and found them all lies; he had drunk of every stream
and found no pure living water that could slake his thirst.
And men such as he, sated but not satisfied, jaded with
voluptuous delights, and without the peace of faith, com-
monly look out upon the world with haggard eyes.”+ Hence
the tone in which in the opening prologue the author
expresses himself: “Generation goes and generation comes,
and the earth stands for ever.” The sun rises and sets the
same as ever, the winds continue to blow in their perpetual
circuits, the rivers run into the sea. All the things of nature
are in a state of ceaseless activity, human language cannot
express this constant coming and going; which, however,
produces only the same effects as ever; “there is nothing
new under the sun.” This restlessness of nature on the one
hand, and the uniformity of its action on the other, were felt
by the writer to be depressing, especially when he reflected
that he himself also was rapidly passing away from the ever-
lasting earth, trodden by so many men before him, and which
so many generations of men would tread after he was gone,
each generation destined in its turn to be alike forgotten.
Urged forward by such considerations, and inspired with
special wisdom from above, Koheleth set himself diligently to
discover that thing which man ought to strive for on earth.
What is there “ under the sun” which can afford real satis-
faction to the heart of man, and what man ought to regard as
beyond his powers? With this special object in view, Kohe-
leth sought to make use of the wisdom he possessed in order
to take a survey, not so much of the phenomena of nature
(which are only glanced at in the prologue), as of the
actions of men, He desired to note carefully all that was

1: The Quest of the Chief Good: Expository Lectures on the Book Ecclesiastes,
with « New Translation, by Samuel Cox, D.D, A Commentary for Laymen:
London, Arthur Miall,

Solomon as a philosophical investigator. [145

done “under the sun,” and to ascertain, if possible, that
which was best for the sons of men.- He, however, states
in the outset the conclusion at which he ultimately arrived,
namely, that the investigation itself was an evil toil, inas-
much as it could lead to no definite result, “for all is
vanity and a striving after wind.” In his case, the inquiry
only brought into clearer light the various evils connected
with man’s lot, while it showed his inability to remove them :
“the crooked cannot be made straight.’ For many of the
sorrows of life can be traced up to a higher source than
man. “Who can make that straight which God hath made
crooked?” (chap. vii. 13). Hence the search after wisdom
brought no satisfaction to Koheleth. He discovered that
man was shut in on all sides, and confined within bar-
riers which could not be passed. The highest conclusion
to which human wisdom and knowledge can attain is to
understand that one knows nothing yet as he ought to know
(1 Cor. viii. 2). Still more unsatisfactory Koheleth dis-
covered the attempt to attain “the highest good” by means
of what is usually termed pleasure. The endeavours of
Solomon to obtain satisfaction in this way are described as
the writer’s personal experience. He gives a vivid sketch
of the eagerness with which that monarch pursued after all
kinds of enjoyments.

Solomon is depicted in this part of the work in the
character of a philosophical investigator, who, by the pos-
session of more than ordinary wisdom, was preserved from
ultimate ruin, although he indulged fora time in the keenest
pursuit of those things which could gratify his desires. His
wisdom enabled him to maintain such a control over his
passions that he was not swallowed up in the abyss of
sensuality never to rise again, as is the case with the majority
of those who venture on such a dangerous course As

" In Professor Mozley’s Sermons, Farochtal and Occasional (Rivingtons, 1879),

1,

146 The evils of Folly tested by experience.

Delitzsch observes: “There are drinkers who know how to
regulate their drinking so that they do not end in the madness
of intemperance; and there are habitual voluptuaries who
so far understand how to control themselves as not become
roués altogether ruined in body.” Though Solomon possessed
this great advantage over others, yet, when at the close of
his life of “pleasure” he reviewed one by one the various
“delights” in which he had so freely indulged, and contem-
plated the works of grandeur erected to gratify his purer
tastes, he was constrained to confess that “all was but vanity
and a striving after the wind, and there was no profit under
the sun” (ii. 13).

Thus Solomon learned by experience the inability of wis-
dom on the one hand, and of folly on the other, to secure
happiness or satisfaction. But though alike incompetent to

there is a remarkable discourse on this subject, entitled “‘ Wisdom and Folly tested
by experience.” Speaking of this section of Ecclesiastes, Mozley observes that
for a discerning person deliberately to set about a course of folly and madness
in order to discover the evil effects of such a course, is something in the highest
degree superfluous. There are two ways of arriving at the knowledge of the
truth respecting the importance and benefit of holiness and goodness, either by the
experience of that which is good or by the experience of that which is bad.
Mozley contrasts the knowledge of the advantages of a good life gained by experi-
ence with the knowledge of the disadvantages of an evil life obtained in a similar
manner. The conviction of sin in persons recovered ‘from a course of transgression
is no doubt deep and acute. But the great use of wisdom is to lead men to act
uprightly, and the wisdom that comes after action comes too late. In both cases
a moral conviction is gained, but in the case in which it has been obtained by the
practice of ill, the conviction comes not in time to prevent the evil, but merely to
acquaint one with it. Sin itself produces an effect upon the soul which does not
cease when the course of sinning is past. The conviction of a man who does not
yield to immorality is the result of his faith, He goes through life with the
belief that a course of sin must end in misery, There is no similar exercise of
faith in the case of the man who seeks first to discover by his personal experience
the-effects of sin. In the former case there is a gain in moral discipline which
is wanting in the latter. In answer to the crude objection that the man who
has actually proved the effects of sin is the only one who can speak with authority
on the subject, Mozley observes that such a person may indeed speak with author-
ity, but his advice is always open to the retort from the person whom he seeks to
dissuade from a path of sin, You have learned your wisdom from experience, and
I desire to follow the same course.

The superior excellency of Wesdom. 147

procure “the highest good,’ Koheleth affirms the vast
superiority of wisdom over folly. Spéaking still under the
mask of the Israelitish king, Koheleth carefully guards against
any misrepresentation of his real sentiments on this important
point, and points out the advantages of wisdom in a few terse
sentences. Who could venture to speak on such a subject
with greater authority than Solomon? “For what is the
man that is to come after the king, whom they made” king
“long ago” (chap. ii. 12) amid the acclamations of the mul-
titude (1 Kings i. 39, 40, comp. 1 Kings v. 1; 1 Chron. xxix.
22)? Surely a wise man like Solomon with his experience
could point out the superiority of wisdom better than any
other teacher that might come after him (chap. ii. 12). The
excellency of wisdom is distinctly taught by that monarch in
the Book of Proverbs, and consequently Koheleth was fully
justified in expressing the views of the ideal Solomon in the
following terms: “I saw that the superiority of wisdom over
folly is like the superiority of light over darkness. The
wise man has his eyes in his head, and the fool walketh in
darkness ” (ii. 13).

Koheleth points out the advantage which the possession of
wisdom gives to man even in the ordinary affairs of daily life.
“Wisdom strengthens a wise man more than ten powerful
men which are in the city” (vii. 20). For there is no just
man on the earth who doeth good and sinneth not. The
most righteous are liable to fall into faults of some sort or
other, but wisdom may deliver the truly upright from the
evil results of such offences. Mindful, however, of his own
natural tendency to evil and of his liability to fall, the wise
man ought to pass over the minor offences of others, and
take little notice of the angry speeches or curses uttered in
moments of bitterness by persons in subordinate positions
(chap, vii, 20, 21), Wisdom thus will often protect a man amid
dangers which would swallow up a fool, It will teach him

148 Vanity of Wisdom as proved by death,

how to conduct himself in the presence of Oriental despots,
it will instruct him how to moderate his speech and temper
his manners. It will teach him to obey the king on account
of the oath of allegiance which he has taken, while it will
lead him to be patient in days of oppression, and to wait
for the coming day of vengeance in which God will punish
transgressors (chap. viii. 1 ff).

The story related in chap. ix. 13-15 of the little city besieged
by the mighty king and delivered by the wisdom of a poor
wise man may be adduced as an illustration of this truth.
For wisdom, though despised in days of prosperity, when
proclaimed by the lips of a poor wise man, has often been
found in the day of adversity superior to all earthly power
and might (chap. ix. 16).

Notwithstanding the essential superiority of the wise man
over the fool, their ultimate lot in this world is identical.
Wisdom may preserve a wise man from many dangers, but,
sooner or later, he, too, must succumb to the common lot.
“One chance happens to all” (chap. ii. 14). Death strikes
down the wise man in the exercise of his wisdom, and the
fool while intent on his folly. Both are swept away by that
mighty torrent (Ps. xc. 5), and their memory is alike forgotten
(Koh. ii. 16). The bitter lament of David over Abner (2
Sam. iii. 33) has ever and anon been repeated over the wise
man’s grave, “How dieth the wise man like the fool!”
(chap. ii. 16).

It was under the pressure of such thoughts that Koheleth
was driven to exclaim: “Then I hated life, for evil to me
appeared the work which was done under the sun, for the
whole is vanity and a striving after wind ” (chap. ii. 17).

Similar were his reflections as he contemplated the vanity
of riches which, though amassed by constant toil, must at
last be left to others (chap. ii. 18-23, comp. v. 9 ff). Men
are seldom disquieted in the day of prosperity (chap. v. 19)

Koheleth’s pessimistic views of life. 149

by reflections on the uncertainty of life, or on the possibility
of a reverse of fortune. But it not unfrequently happens
that riches are kept and guarded, only at last to be a source
of greater grief to him who has amassed them, when he sees
them borne away from his grasp by some terrible wave of
misfortune. A man who has brought up his children in pros-
perity and with reasonable expectations of enjoying a life of
affluence, is sometimes by a change of circumstances left with
nothing in his hands, and though once wealthy is consigned at
last to a poor man’s grave. This, too, Koheleth notes as one
of the worst evils of life that ‘as a man comes naked into the
world so must he depart naked out of it again” (chap. v.
12-15). The final conclusion of Koheleth as to the unprofit-
ableness of riches to procure man’s highest good may well
be summed up in Apostolic language : “They that desire
to be rich (βουλόμενοι πλουτεῖν) fall into a temptation, and
a snare, and many foolish and hurtful lusts (desires) such as
drown men in destruction and perdition” (1 Tim. vi. 9, 10).
Reflections such as these naturally predisposed Koheleth
to take a pessimistic view of life. The peculiar evils pre-
valent in his own day made the misery of life appear still
more bitter in his eyes. It is difficult in any age to point
out what man should strive for on earth, and this difficulty
was in Koheleth’s day aggravated materially by many
circumstances, The careful student will note how often
Koheleth wanders off from other subjects to make some
reference to the galling despotism then rampant, and the
terrible evils with which it was accompanied. Although he
enjoined on his readers the duty of obeying those in authority,
‘‘for conscience sake,” he was not unmindful of the frightful
oppression which marked the government of the day. Not
only did the lower magistrates tyrannise over the people,
but they who were higher in office watched in turn for an
opportunity to oppress their subordinates. Such was the case

150 Koheleth on the oppression of the people.

from the lowest officials up to the persons who stood high-
est in authority and power. Alongside of the satraps, the
chief rulers under the Crown in the Persian Empire, there
were other dignitaries in some respects “higher than they.”
Such an official was the Royal Secretary, designated “the
King’s Eye” and “Ear;” such were the royal inspectors.’
These were often ready, sometimes under the influence of
a wretched inmate of the royal harem, to pounce down like
vultures on an unlucky satrap and gorge themselves with
his plunder (chap. v. 7, comp. chap. x. 4-7, 16 ff). Under
such a system, which was eating at that time like a cancer
into the very heart of the Persian empire, a man of wisdom,
though he might by the exercise of prudence and under-
standing escape personal danger, would often be compelled
to behold human sorrows which he could not alleviate.

Koheleth thus relates his own observations on this
point :—“ And again I saw all the oppressions which occur
under the sun, and behold the tear of the oppressed, and
they have no comforter, and from the hand of those who
are oppressing them violence, and they have no comforter”
(chap, iv. 1) It was at such moments that Koheleth felt,
to. use the words of a pessimist philosopher, “the torment
of existence,” and was driven to exclaim that “he who in-
creaseth knowledge increaseth also sorrow”? The thought
amid such scenes forced itself upon his mind, what ends
and objects were to be attained by the endurance of such
misery? It was then that he regarded the state of “the
dead that were already dead long ago” to be preferable
to that of the living, and thought that the lot of those was
to be envied who had never been born, and who had not

1 Prof. George Rawlinson’s Aneicrt Monarchies, vol. iii. pp. 423 ff. Xenophon,
Cyropadia, lib. viii, 2, 10. ᾿

2 Vide Moritz Venetianer, Schopenhauer als Scholastiker; Eine Kritik der

Schopenhauer’schen Philosophie mit Riicksicht auf die gesammte Kantische
Neoscholastik (Berlin: Carl Duncker, 1873), p. 275.

Koheleth on the Day of Death. 151

beheld “the evil that was done under the sun” (chap. iv. 2, 3).
The toil and moil of life, and the constant efforts of men to
overtop and surpass their fellows seemed to him but “vanity
and striving after the wind.”

Koheleth was in a similar frame of mind when he wrote
“better is a name than good ointment and the day of (one’s)
death than the day of his birth” (chap. vii. 1). The first
expression shows how deeply the desire was implanted in
the writer’s soul that his name should be kept in remem-
brance, The connexion in which the aphorism concerning
“the day of one’s death” occurs shows its meaning to be
that expressed later, namely, “better is the end of a matter
than its beginning” (chap. vii. 8). When “a man is born
into the world” no one can tell “what manner of child it
shall be.” But, when the day of death has brought the indi-
vidual’s career to a close, a true'estimate can be formed of
the happiness of his life as a whole. The remark of Solon
in reply to the inquiry of Crcesus, that “no man is to be
counted happy until he has closed his life happily” (Herod,
i. 32), partly illustrates these aphorisms of Koheleth. Under
the Old Dispensation, in times of terrible affliction such as
that which darkened the life of Job, it was natural to bemoan
the day of one’s birth (Job iii. 3 ff, x. 18, 19), or even to give
utterance to similar expressions in days of dire national dis-
tress and individual persecution, as in’ the case of Jeremiah
(Jer. xx. 14-18), But to argue, with Venetianer, from such
lamentations that the pessimism of Job and Koheleth is in
accordance with that of Schopenhauer, is to assign to the
expressions of these Old Testament writers a meaning never
for a moment contemplated by them.

For what is the teaching of the modern school of Pessim-
ism as to the life of man? This school of philosophy, as
represented by Schopenhauer and others, it should be noted
in the outset, is avowedly atheistic in its creed, though in |

152 “ Unreasoned Pessinitsm.”

the shape it has assumed in the writings of von Hartmann
it exhibits somewhat of a Pantheistic tendency. It is in
many respects one of the most extraordinary phenomena
of the present age. Men have existed in all ages predis-
posed to melancholy and inclined to look upon life as dark
and gloomy. This “unreasoned pessimism,” as it has been
well termed by Mr. Sully,! has assumed many forms. Some
of the finest outpourings of poetry have been the outbursts
of the feeling of melancholy which often seizes upon the
human heart. The optimism of Leibnitz,? eagerly embraced
both by the Deist philosophers and the Christian theologians
of the eighteenth century, produced a reaction in an opposite
direction among philosophic thinkers, a reaction strongly
aided by the writings of David Hume. Several of the
leading poets of the succeeding age, such as Byron and
Shelley in England, and Heine and others in Germany, were
deeply imbued with a dislike of the then prevalent optimism,
and their poems often complain of the misery of human life.
Some of them went further, and even Herder in some of
his poems expressed sentiments not very different from those
lately propounded.’ Pessimism, however, may be considered
to have been first elevated to the position of a philosophic
creed by the writings of Schopenhauer’and von Hartmann.*

} Sully’s Pessimism: a History and a Criticism (London: H. 5. King ἃ Co.,
1877), chap. ii.

2 See Venetianer’s remarks on Leibnitz, in his Schopenhauer als Scholastiker,
p. 281, and still better, Sully’s observations on the Theodicy of Leibnitz, in his
Pessimism, chap. iii.

3 As for instance in his poem entitled ‘t Das Ich.”

4 A, Taubert, in her work Der Pessimismus und seine Gegner (Berlin: Duncker,
1873), remarks (p, 10) that the term ‘‘ pessimism” is not well chosen, as it might
express the idea that the present world was the worst that could be conceived.
The term, however, she regards as correct so far as it conveys the idea that the non-
existence of the universe is to be preferred to its existence. She observes that the
more suitable expression would be that proposed by Knauer, namely, A/adismus,
or, as Haym has proposed, AZéserabzlismus. For these terms permit one to hold
the opinion that, in spite of its badness, the world as it exists is the best of all
possible worlds, while the word ‘‘ pessimism” conveys a much stronger idea. On
‘Taubert, see note 2 on p. 158,

Natural temperament of Schopenhauer. 153

It is highly probable that the natural temperament of
Arthur Schopenhauer, the real founder of the modern school
of Pessimism,! had not a little to do with the philosophic
tenets he ventured to propound. The genesis of philosophic
pessimism is a matter which we cannot here more than allude
to, We have to deal with it as a fact, the existence of which
is one of the most remarkable phenomena of the day. It is,
however, worthy of mention that Schopenhauer’s sanity has
been seriously called in question.?

“Unreasoned pessimism” is, as Sully has well observed,
in many cases but the natural outburst of a carping, fault-

‘In his work Zur Geschichte und Begriindung des Pessimismus (Berlin, 1880)
von Hartmann maintains that, although Schopenhauer was the first philosopher
who set forth Pessimism as a definite philosophy, the real author of that philoso-
phy. was Kant, though the term Pessimism does not occur in his writings. That
Kant was the real Father of Pessimism is a startling statement, the truth of which
cannot be here discussed. E. von Hartmann naturally seeks to roll away from the
philosophy, of which he himself is now the most conspicuous advocate (but which
is presented in some respects in a more objectionable form in his writings), the re-
proach of deriving its beginning and strength from the melancholy temper of its
first advocate. Hence his efforts to trace its origin to one who was admittedly
the greatest philosopher of his day.

2 See the remarkable tract, Doctor Arthur Schopenhauer vom medicinischen
Standpunkte betrachtet, von Carl von Seidlitz. Dorpat, 1872. Gwinner, his ablest
and latest biographer, speaks of him as one who from’ childhood was always dis-
posed to believe that some terrible misfortune was about to happen to him. He
admits that his hero’s intense anxiety often bordered: on madness. As a young
man he was tortured constantly with the idea that he had all sorts of diseases.
When a student he once fancied he was dying of consumption. He fled from
Naples through a nervous dread of the smallpox, and from Berlin on account of
the cholera. For many years he was miserable, owing to his fear of a criminal
process. He was greatly deficient in personal courage, and was in a constant
state of alarm in 1813, fearing lest he should be forced into the army. If he was
awoke by any noise at night he would rush out of his bed armed with a dagger
and pistols, which he always kept loaded, He was more than inclined to bea
‘regular misanthrope, although sometimes desirous not to be regarded as such,
but simply as one who despised mankind in general. In his old age he seemed to
look upon any contact with men as a contamination and a defilement, and main-
tained that the wisest man is he who in the whole course of his life has the least
intercourse with his fellows, He regarded the vast majority of mankind as either
knaves or fools. See Schopenhauer’s Leben, von Wilhelm Gwinner, 2te umgear-
beitete u. vielfach vermehrte Auflage der Schrift ‘Arthur Schopenhauer aus per-
sénlichem Umgange dargestelt.” Leipzig: F, A. Brockhaus, 1878.

154 The starting-point of Schopenhauer.

finding disposition. Many take pleasure in finding fault with
all around them, and in thus seeking to exhibit their own real
or fancied superiority. “By how much, one wonders, would
the amount of human criticism be diminished, if one no
longer derived from the process any agreeable feelings of
intellectual elevation.” “ Pessimism flatters a man by pre-
senting him with a portrait of himself in which he appears as
another ‘Prometheus vinctus,’ suffering tortures from the
hand of the cruel Zeus-pater, the World-all, which begot and
holds us, yet bearing up and resisting in proud defiance.
. Pessimism enables its adherent to pose as some
wronged and suffering divinity, to the admiration of himself
at least, if not of spectators around him,”+! an admiration
not less real though it is generally disavowed. Many persons
have adopted the creed of modern Pessimism, not because
they have made for themselves any deep study of its prin-
ciples, and still less any careful study. of the arguments in
favour of Christianity, but simply because of the novelty and
temporary popularity which that system has attained in some
quarters, and because, like other atheistic theories, it is un-
questionably upheld by some writers of ability and renown,
Schopenhauer claims to start from the standpoint of
idealism as expounded in the writings of Kant. He de-
nounces the three great leaders of philosophic thought in
Germany who succeeded that philosopher, and further de-
veloped his principles—namely, Fichte, Schelling, and Hegel,
as “the three German sophists.” The writings of Hegel
especially are the subjects of his fiercest denunciations. He
characterises them as full of such monstrous combinations
of words, as to have destroyed in many persons all faculty of

1 Sully’s Pessimism, pp. 423, 424. Kalisch observes in his Path and Goal,
p- 437, that Nihilism or Pessimism is for many ‘‘a practical canon adopted be-
cause they find it congenial to their nature, and grasped with increased tenacity
because they hear it praised and supported by men of ability and fame.”

Schopenhauer and von Hartmann on the Unconscious.155

thinking, and made them consider “hollow empty phrases”
as real thoughts, and look on “transparent sophisms”’ as lofty
wisdom.

The world, according to Schopenhauer’s conception, con-
sists of “will and representation” (Wille und Vorstellung).
The external world of appearance exists only for the per-
cipient mind. But, underlying the outer veil of phenomena
there is something real, namely, “will,” which is the ultimate
cause of all existence. This “will,” however, is “unconscious.”
It has no object or aim in its action. It exists outside all time,
and is “one and indivisible,” although it manifests itself in
numberless individual appearances, How such “unconscious
will” could, in the course of things, ever attain to conscious-
ness is a problem of metaphysics which need not here be
discussed. One is, indeed, often tempted to ask whether the
language of condemnation so unsparingly applied by Scho-
penhauer to the philosophy of Hegel is not as applicable to the
mystical principles of his own philosophy? It is not, indeed,
strange that the man who invented such a philosophy should
propound it as the highest wisdom, little as it is deserving of
that title. But it is strange that it should have captivated
the imagination of other able critics. It has been presented
in a more developed form in the work of Dr. Eduard von
Hartmann, namely, Die Philosophie des Unbewussten, and
defended in other productions of his pen, especially in his
Phinomenologie des sittl, Bewusstseins. It is hard to form
any intelligible conception of the fundamental principle of a
philosophical system which asserts the existence of an “un-
conscious Absolute,” one of whose modes of manifestation is
consciousness. “An Unconscious which performs acts of the
will by which, as by sorcery, it is at any moment able to
destroy matter and to call it again into existence? An Un-
conscious which is a sfrit, serving as ‘the common bond of
the world, and as the principle of unity pervading its plan of

156 An “unconscious will” a contradiction.

creation’? An Unconscious that not only possesses ‘reason
and intelligence, but is endowed with a clear-sighted wisdom
infinitely superior to any conceivable consciousness ?” ἢ

It is out of our province to seek to give more than a
sketch of this philosophical school. It,is the use its leading
advocates have made of the Book of Koheleth which
renders it necessary to notice the wide difference between
the pessimism of that book and that inculcated by the school
of modern Pessimism. But, in order to understand the funda-
mental difference between the two, it is necessary to under-
stand the leading ideas on which the new philosophy is founded.

An “unconscious will” is almost a contradiction in terms.
Volition cannot exist without some object towards which
that volition or desire is directed, or without some mental
representation of that which is desired. Schopenhauer main-
tains that “will” may exist without intellect ; because the
lower we descend in the scale of creation the less intellect is ,
perceptible, while “will” is as strongly marked as ever; and
von Hartmann maintains that unconscious objects and
aims are traceable throughout the whole course of nature.
Sully, however, observes rightly that there is a radical dis-
tinction to be drawn between actions which are merely in-
stinctive, and actions which proceed from volition. He
argues that it is false to regard will or volition as including
all emotional phenomena. The very idea of “will” pre-
supposes some instinctive impulse, which exists prior to any
exercise of volition, as well as some imagination of the act
to be willed or not willed as one likely to be followed by some
pleasure or pain. It is this imagination which ultimately
excites the exercise of volition, although in the analysis of
higher volitions other elements come into play.”

1 See the sketch of Pessimism in Dr, M. M. Kalisch’s interesting work, Pa‘?
and Goal; A Discussion on the Elements of Civilization and the Conditions of
Happiness, London: Longmans, Green & Co., 1880, p. 427.

2 See Sully’s Pess/mism, pp. 207, 209, 211. :

Identification of “will” and “ destre.” 157

The philosophy of Schopenhauer and von Hartmann has
for its fundamental basis this tenet of an “ unconscious will.”
Is this, as Sully thinks, the reappearance in another form
of the old hypothesis of a “ substantial. will,” long since cast
into the philosophical lumber-room as utterly incapable of
proof? All human knowledge is necessarily phenomenal. Man
cannot rise above the law of his being and grasp in thought
that entity or substance which underlies phenomena. The pre-
tence of having attained to such a knowledge will in every case,
when investigated, be found to rest upon a fetztio principit,

“Will” regarded by these philosophers as the cause of
all existence is identified by them with “desire.” It thus
necessarily implies want on the one hand and a longing to
appease that want on the other. Hence they maintain that
it more or less distinctly involves the idea of suffering. It
may, however, be seriously questioned whether “desire”
of itself pre-supposes in all cases suffering, while on the
other hand the correctness of the identification of “ will”
with “desire” is more than doubtful. Schopenhauer may be
wrong in asserting that pleasure is in all cases preceded by
« desire’, or in other words, is absolutely inseparable from
pain. Eduard von Hartmann has acknowledged that the con-
clusion is not justified by facts. For there are often pleasures,
as Sully justly observes, which are wholly unexpected, and,
therefore, not preceded by any volition whatever, while there
are pains which are in like manner entirely independent of
“will” In order to uphold the theory that pleasure and pain
are nothing else than the satisfaction or non-satisfaction of
“will”? von Hartmann has recourse to his hypothesis of the
Unconscious, and maintains that, in all cases ‘““where we
cannot find in consciousness any state of volition underlying
our pleasures and pains, this substratum exists as uncon-
scious will.” ?

1 See Sully’s Pessimism, pp. 200 ff.

158 Schopenhauer on the misery of Existence.

Inasmuch as Schopenhauer affirms that existence itself is
the consequence of “ will,” or, of “the will to live,” and every
act of will is attended by more or less suffering, the cxercise
of will is looked upon as the real cause of all the misery of
life. The non-existence of the world is to be preferred to its
existence. The world is cursed with four great evils, birth,
disease, old age, and death. “ Existence is only a punish-
ment,” and the feeling of misery which often accompanies
it is “repentance” for the great crime of having come into
being by yieldinz to the “ will to live.” 1 Happiness is un-
attainable in this world, while a future state of existence is
pronounced a mere delusion. And, even if there were another
life, the pessimist asserts that there could be no real happi-
ness in it. For life implies “will;” and the existence of
“will,” inasmuch as “the will” must ever meet with some
hindrances to the attainment of its desires, is incompatible
with happiness.?

In arriving at such conclusions, the pessimist writers assert
that they are only carrying out to their natural consequences
the doctrines taught in the Books of Job and Koheleth. In
both these books (as we have seen, p. 151) the day of birth
is spoken of as a day of sorrow. The circumstances under
which the sacred writers gave utterance to such expressions
ought indeed to have been sufficient to restrain our would-be
modern philosophers from bringing them forward in favour
of their doctrine of the absolute misery of all existence.§

The following is a description of the results arrived at by

1 Schopenhauer's siimmtliche Werke, vol. iii. p. 666 (Die Welt als Wille und
Vorstelluny).

2 See Taubert’s Pessdmismus u. scine Gegner, Kap. ix. pp. 85 ff. ‘* A. Taubert,”
whom Sully in his Pessimism, pp. 108, 109, has mistaken for an author be-
longing to the sterner sex, was the name under which Dr, Eduard von Hart-
mann’s first wife wrote in defence of the philosophy of which her husband is so
conspicuous an advocate.

% Dean Swift's practice of bemoaning, or affecting to bemoan, the day of his
birth does not deserve to be more than alluded to here.

E. v. Hartmann’s three stages of illusion. 159

this new philosophy as drawn by no unfriendly pen. “To
live signifies to have wants, signifies suffering. Living implics
having a body with the iron law of preserving and protecting
it against a thousand dangers and pains. Then there is the
preservation of the family, all which brings every day new
sorrows and demands, calling for the exercise of all the
powers, though with the full conviction, however, that we
must at last lose the game, and that one is steering steadily
towards death. If a man casts off all other burdens, he
becomes a burden to himself. When cares vanish, man is
consumed by ennui, and the greatest efforts have to be made
to kill time. . . . These and similar meditations are the
everlasting theme of Schopenhauer. Eduard von Hartmann
has reduced these ideas to a system and carried them out
still further in his three stages of illusion, (1) illusion especially
as to the expectation of happiness here, (2) illusion as to the
expectation of individual happiness in another world, (3)
illusion as to the expectation of happiness as ultimately to be
attained by the world’s progress. All is illusion ; for the more
knowledge, the more suffering.” Such is the interpretation the
pessimist puts upon the statement of Koheleth i. 18, “he that
increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow.” ! Schopenhauer
has, however, curiously enough maintained that Pessimism
may be made the means of benefiting mankind. “Everything
is miserable, everything entreats for pity, be pitiful. Think
not that thou hast before thee a wicked stupid creature,
but think upon the suffering necessarily belonging to it,
Virtue, indeed, according to Schopenhauer, can by no means
be taught, but that does not hinder him from teaching it as
forcibly as any one else. . . . No one down to Schopen-
hauer has known how to make such an idea (that of universal
misery) the principle of a metaphysic of morals, which can
also be supported by the finest psychological investigations.” 2

1 See Venetianer, Schopenhauer als Scholastiker, p.275. * Venetiancr, pp.281, 282.

160 = l’enetianer on the Pessimist Philosophy.

Such is Venetianer’s estimate of the results achieved by
the Pessimist philosophy. He has, however, severely criti-
cised his master for the intolerable pride and conceit which
he everywhere exhibits, a pride which characterises other
writers of the Pessimist school. Schopenhauer has been
soundly rated by his disciple for his “ barbarous ignorance ”
and gross attacks upon the Jewish religion as an utter
“abomination,” for his shameless misrepresentations of its
principles, and for his bigotry against the Jewish race in
general, to which Venetianer himself belongs. He points out,
however, with considerable truth, that, although Schopenhauer
may abuse and revile Jews and Judaism, not a little of his
metaphysics may ultimately be traced up to Jewish sources.

Τ᾿ Venetianer maintains that much of what Schopenhauer says about the unity
of will harmonises with what Maimonides teaches about the unity of God. He
notes also that a distinguished Jewish poet and philosopher, Salomo Ibn Gabirol,
who died in A.D. £1070, aonceived God chiefly as ‘‘ will,” an opinion which was
followed by Duns Scotus, one of the most eminent of the scholastic doctors of the
fourteenth century. As a philosopher, Ibn Gabirol was known by the name of
‘Avicebron or Avicembrol in the Latin of the middle ages. On Ibn Gabirol’s
doctrine on this point Dr. David Asher’s pamphlet (Arthur Schopenhauer : Neues
von thm und diber, Berlin 1871) may be consulted with profit. Schopenhauer, in
a letter to Dr. Asher, in 1857, speaks of Ibn Gabirol as follows : ‘‘ Gabirol may be
regarded as my forerunner inasmuch as he teaches that the will is, performs, and
makes all in all, but there also his entire wisdom is at an end, because he teaches
it only thus 7 adstracto, and repeats it a thousand times. In relation to me
he is like a glow-worm which gives light by night in a thick mist compared with
the sun.”---See Gwinner, Schopenhauer’s Leben, p. 584. The pride exhibited in
these remarks is characteristic of Schopenhauer. Venetianer notes that Schopen-
hauer, though an opponent of faith, has not been able to emancipate himself from
his traditional inclinations, and that his idea that. ethics are closely connected
with metaphysics when examined into is almost equivalent to the statement that
morality depends upon faith in God. It is well, however, to be cautious
against making a mistake on such points, Similarity of expression may cover
radical differences of thought. The language of Trinitarianism has been often
used to express ideas which are essentially pantheistic. Schopenhauer’s ethics
are far from corresponding with the doctrines of Christianity. It must not be
forgotten that that philosopher declared that Christianity was quite possible,
provided only that the ‘‘Jewish dogma” on which the gospels are based be
abandoned, namely, that man is created by God, when the truth is that man is
in reality only the product of his own will, z.¢., is in fact his own creator! See
Kalisch’s Path and Goal, pp. 430-432; Schopenhauer, [Vel als Wille τι, Porste-
lung, Werke, vol, i. pp. 477-483.

Pessimism leads to asceticism and suicide. 161

Life is regarded by Schopenhauer as necessarily involving
suffering. Man and animated nature are preyed upon by
a burning thirst or desire which can never be quenched.
Human life oscillates like a pendulum ever between the
two points, of pain on the one hand and of ennui on the
other! Hence true freedom can only be effected by the
“denial of the will to live.” The fourth book of Schopen-
hauer’s remarkable treatise is devoted to this subject.
Existence is an evil which, according to his idea, can only
be destroyed, as it has been created, by will. The goal
which the pessimists set before them as the great object to
be kept steadily in view is to lose all self-consciousness, and
to be swallowed up in the great nothing out of which man
rose. ‘This doctrine, as taught by Schopenhauer, conducts
first to asceticism, and ultimately to suicide.

Schopenhauer admits the validity of the first conclusion,
and consequently recommends celibacy and asceticism as
“(a denial of the will to live.” He maintains, however, that
his tenets do not lead to suicide. The denial of “the will
to live,” according to him, implies a denial of the pleasures
of life, and not merely of its sufferings ; and it is an inability

1 Schopenhauer’s Welt als Wille und Vorstellung. Werke, vol. i. pp. 366 ff
418, and Parerga, ii. § 173. ;

2 In his Phenomenologie (pp. 688 ff.), von Hartmann criticises the asceticism
recommended by Schopenhauer and Mailander. He refers to the practices of the
Skopzecs of Russia, but without approving of them, and notices the still more
objectionable recommendations in another direction, tending to the same end,
namely, the lessening of the human race, which have been put forward unblush-
ingly as a new “‘ gospel of nature,” by English writers whose names need not here
be mentioned. It is too much the habit to trace all that is evil in practice, and
unsound in theology, to continental sources; and hence the following remarks of
yon Hartmann may not be without instruction to those in England who are dis-
posed to think ‘‘ more highly than they ought to think ” of the nation to which
they belong :—‘‘It is a remarkable irony of history that this weapon should have
been forged by Manchester Bourgeois-Liberalism for the social democracy ; for it
is the land of Bentham and of Mill, from which this new ‘gospel’ comes to us,
that appears to be essentially a medical outrider of the Ricardo-Malthusian Over-
population theory.”—/henom. sittl, Bewussteins, p. 691.

M

162 Extraordinary views of Schopenhauer.

to bear up against the inconveniences of life which drives an
individual to suicide. “The true pessimist” is anxious not
only to get rid of existence for himself, but is actuated still
more by a desire to benefit his species.. Hence he ought to
live in order to point out to others the misery of life, and
to.induce them by his example voluntarily to deny the “ will
to live,” and thus hasten the time when the whole species
shall reach the Paradise of Nirvana

Hence these philosophers have asserted that sufferings of
every kind are useful inasmuch as they drive men to feel
the weariness and misery of life, and events of the contrary
character are hurtful because they make men love that
which is so evil. One of the speakers in Kalisch’s ingenious
book Path and Goal (p. 424) points out pithily what results
from such extraordinary premises: “Plainly this, that we can
show to our fellow-man no greater love and affection than by
inflicting upon him every possible torture and anguish, since
we thereby bring him nearer to his true salvation, whereas
it is fiendish malice and cruelty to show him any kindness,
to help him out of difficulties, or to. protect him against
injustice and ignominy, since we thereby lure him away from
the blessed path of deliverance which leads through trials,
and thus make him miss the true object of existence.?

However theoretically opposed Schopenhauer’s philosophy
may be to suicide, and however much his followers have tried
to avoid the accusation that the doctrines of Pessimism tend

1 See on Nirvana the notes on pp. 173, 175, 182.

2 In his Phenomenologie des sittlichen Bewusstseins, pp. 42-46, von Hartmann
has some striking criticisms on these notions of Schopenhauer. He points out
that Pessimism in the form advocated by Schopenhauer is essentially selfish in its
aims. It is selfish for a man to seek to escape from life and leave others to go on
in the same ‘‘ mad dance of fools which common life is.” One ought, according
to von Hartmann, to be perfectly indifferent to life or death, to the idea of our
existence being prolonged indefinitely or terminated, The latter idea is in some
aspects akin to the doctrine of the Yoga taught in the second chapter of the
Bhagavad-Gita,

Taubert’s reference to Suicide. 163

to that result, suicide cannot but be regarded as a logical
outcome of such doctrines. It must be borne in mind that
pessimists are not opposed to suicide on any principles of
morality. Every real basis of morality is destroyed by their
system. If life be hateful and its burden unendurable, and
if death lands us in the everlasting rest of nothingness (for
we need not here discuss the possibility of some continuity
of existence when consciousness has ceased), then the con-
clusion of the song is logical “the sooner ’tis over the sooner
to sleep.” Why should an individual continue to live a life
of martyrdom and useless striving when the end of all is
that nothing, into which ascetics and voluptuaries shall alike
descend ? Why not, as speedily as possible step behind the
veil into the rest of unconsciousness? For even the miseries
of those who remain still on earth, whose sufferings the
individual might by living perhaps help to alleviate, only
tend to make them more willing to seek the same blissful
goal,

Taubert sneers at the man who regards life without plea-
sure as unendurable, at him who must needs whine over his
sorrows. It may be a question for such a man to consider
“whether existence for him at least is preferable to non-
existence.” She observes, however, that the choice, though
a bad one, is open to every one; and she intimates tolerably
plainly that many persons have made a much worse choice.}

This last-named writer has, also, the hardiness to maintain
that the Pessimism which characterises the Books of Job and

1 Taubert Der Pessimismus und seine Gegner, p. 128. Suicide in the present
day is in many places almost an epidemic. Its frequency in Germany, especially
in Saxony and the adjacent countries, has evoked a small literature. But it is not
only in Germany that this fact is arousing attention.. If it cannot be distinctly
traced to the prevalence of the pessimist philosophy, it may without doubt be
attributed in a great measure to that disbelief in a personal God, one of the results
of which is this very philosophy. Men are beginning to practise that which they
believe. It may be well that the natural fruits of atheism and ungodliness have
thus terribly manifested themselves,

164 Taubert on the Book of Koheleth.

Koheleth, and the Prophecies and Lamentations of Jeremiah,
is not essentially different from that of Schopenhauer. This
fact she considers of great importance, because the writings of
the Bible still exercise an influence over many minds. She
terms chap. i~iii. and chap. iv. 1-4 of the Book of Koheleth
“a Catechism of Pessimism,” and recommends these chapters
to be read by every person not thoroughly. acquainted with
their contents! But in these very chapters Koheleth ex-
presses a firm belief in a personal God who, in His own
time (for to everything there is a time and a season), will
judge the righteous and the wicked. Koheleth also affirms
the existence of a life beyond the grave;? and his faith in God
and eternity, taken together with the belief in the reality of
sin which pervades his entire book, is enough to show the
essential difference which exists between his pessimism and
the doctrines of the modern Pessimistic school.

If the doctrines of modern Pessimism be indeed true, then,
as the writer just referred to grants,® the happiest persons on
earth are those who (as long as no special misfortune occurs
to them individually) live without troubling themselves with
any speculations on such subjects, unconcerned with the
misery of the universe in general, and untroubled with reflec-
tions on the difficulties it presents. If Taubert affirms that
such a life is degrading to humanity, and is like that of the
cattle in the pasturage, what matters it if men are little
better than the beasts, and are destined to return to nothing-
néss as they? If such be the ultimate goal of humanity, it is
only wanton cruelty to seek to disturb men’s present ideas
respecting a future life, which at least hold forth to the more
deserving sweet hopes of a better and more glorious life

1 Taubert, Der Pessimismus und seine Gegner, p. 75.

2 See our remarks in chap. vii. on Koheleth’s views as to a future state of exist-
ence,

8 See Taubert, p. 24. Compare ἐν τῷ φρονεῖν yap μηδὲν ἤδιστος βίος. Sophocles’
Ajax, 550. The opposite sentiment is expressed in Sophocles’ Avtigone, 1328.

Taubert on the Socialistic movement. 165

beyond this earthly existence. It is well to be able to dream
of something pleasant, even if it were but a dream !

Taubert lays stress upon the fact commonly observed, that
the higher men advance in the scale of civilization the greater
are their wants, Lassalle (in his Ardezterlesebuch, Ὁ. 32) has
maintained that the virtue suitable to the national economy
of the present day is “to have the greatest possible wants, and
to satisfy them in an honourable and proper manner.” The
working classes, though their condition is far better than in
former days, are for the most part permeated with a feeling
of discontent. Taubert regards this state of affairs as one of
hope, for the more widely spread is the recognition on the
part of the masses of the misery of their condition, the more
easily will they be induced to adopt the principles of Pessim-
ism unconsciously developing themselves in all socialistic
movements. These principles are “the impossibility of
human happiness” on the one hand, and “the wretchedness
of existence” on the other. Taubert regards the adoption
of Pessimism as a step towards the healing of all social evils,
inasmuch as then men would recognise that misery is in-
separable from being itself! Such language might well be
interpreted as that of bitter scorn. To attempt to soothe the
woes of humanity by teaching the doctrines of Pessimism
would be like seeking to quench raging flames by pouring
oil-upon them, or attempting to mollify wounds by rubbing
salt into them. The Pessimist propaganda may well be
compared to the “mad man” of the Book of Proverbs, who
casts in every direction “firebrands, arrows and death”
(Prov. xxvi. 18).

It is utterly impossible that the Pessimist philosophy, with
its doctrine of the abnegation of the will to live, should gain
any large number of adherents prepared to carry out its prin-
ciples to their logical end. The asceticism of the Jewish

1 See Taubert’s Pessimismus und seine Gegner, p. 105, and pp. 114, 118 ff.

166 Inconsistencies of the Pesstmists.

Essenes, and of the Christian hermits, was called forth by
nobler principles, and directed to loftier ends. The world is
not likely to see an outburst of a similar enthusiasm on the
part of atheists desirous of hurrying on the human race to
their imaginary goal of non-consciousness. Men are, more-
over, often better than the creeds to which they profess to give
their assent, and generally too wise to carry out absurd princi-
ples in practice to their legitimate conclusions. The lives of
the Pessimist philosophers and writers of the present day have
not yet exhibited any marked difference from those of others
of the human species! They have not yet shown themselves
indifferent to the love of fame, to the attractions of the fair
sex, or to the other “illusory pleasures” of life. They have
not been as consistent as was the Cynic of antiquity. A filthy
Diogenes in his earthenware tub (according to the popular
legend) would not now attract many adherents. The spread

1: Schopenhauer, though strongly inclined to misanthropy (see n. 2, p. 153), was
keenly susceptible to all adverse criticism of his writings, and to matters affecting
his reputation. He endeavoured in early life to obtain distinction as a University
Professor, and failed. His denunciation in after life of all University Professors
and of ‘‘Katheder-philosophie” (Parerga und Paralipomena, Werke, vol. v.
p. 151 ff) was not a little influenced by his own failure. His great work, too, Die
Welt als Wille und Vorstellung,was, notwithstanding the vigour of its style and the
novelty of its opinions, for many years an utter failure (see Sud/y’s Pessimism,
p- 78 ff). Misogynist, too, as he became in later life, he was at least once guilty
of writing a love-poem, and, when he was a Docent in the University of Berlin,
thought seriously of marriage. His dread of the necessary cares and trouble
of married life, however, led him to abandon his intention. The troubles of
married life he describes characteristically as ‘* endlose Ausgaben, Kindersorgen,
Widerspenstigkeit, Eigensinn, Alt-und-garstigwerden nach wenigen Jahren, Be-
triigen, Hérneraufsetzen, Grillen, hysterische Anfalle, Liebhaber, und Holle und
Teufel” (Gwinner’s Leben, p. 335). It was thus his melancholy forebodings
rather than his philosophical opinions which restrained him from marrying. He
was, however, not without exhibiting at times a susceptibility to the power of
female charms, and was wont to confess, with Lord Byron, that he found it hard
to fall out with women, and easy to fall out with men (Gwinner’s Leben, Ὁ. 527).
Luthardt (d/oderne IVeltanschauungen, p. 188), alluding to the phenomenon
noliced above, very appropriately refers to the scoff of Voltaire, that, however
pessimistically men may often express themselves, ‘they usually try to live as
optimistically as possible, and seldom prove insensible to the pleasures of venison
and champagne,

The natural results of Pessimisnt. 167

of the principles of the Pessimist philosophy, and its adoption
by numbers as their intellectual creed, are certain to lead to
results different from those contemplated by its founders.
Pessimism will not make men more self-denying (strange if
it did!), or induce them to make (as Taubert imagines) the
alleviation of suffering in all forms the object and aim of their
fleeting existence. It will not lead them to make the smallest
distinction possible between themselves and others, between
the “me” and the “ot me,” and finally to become wholly
engrossed with thoughts of how to benefit mankind! But it
will lead many to cast aside all belief in the existence of a
God, of a future life, and of atime of retribution. It will
break down many a barrier that restrained men as “with
bit and bridle” (Ps. xxxii. 9) from a course of sin and folly.
And, inasmuch as life is not only brief but uncertain, such a
philosophy will impel men to seek to make the best use of
their time (as far as is consistent with prudence) by enjoying
the pleasures of sin for their little season. Like other
atheistic philosophies, it will lead to the same conclusions as
those at which the Astronomer Poet of Persia arrived :
“ But if in vain, down on the stubborn floor
Of earth, and up to Heav’n’s unopening door,

1 Vid. Schopenhauer’s Welt als IWille und Vorstellung. Werke (herausg. von
Dr, J. Frauenstadt), vol. iii. pp. 581-2. See also our remarks on Taudert, p. 165.

2 Sully has endeavoured to combat this idea in his Pessimism, p. 318 ff. But
he is driven almost to concede the point in his note on p. 319. However the
highly trained philosopher may act, the adoption of an atheistic creed must lead
the multitude to seek after sensual gratifications, and ultimately drive them into the
most terrible excesses. Even Renan has clearly perceived this, Hence he writes
(Etude sur ? Ecclésiaste, p. 88): ‘In his greatest follies Koheleth does not forget
the judgment of God. Let us do as he does. In the midst of the absolutely
fleeting character of things let us maintain the eternal! Without that we shall not
be free nor easy in discussing it. The morrow of the day when men believe no
more in God, the largest number of victims will be the atheists. One never
philosophises more at ease than when he knows that his philosophy will not be
carried out to its consequences. Ring, ye bells, entirely at your ease; the more
you ring, the more I will permit myself to say that your voice does not mean
anything definite. If I believed that I could silence you, ah! it is then that 1
would be timid and prudent.”

168 Schopenhauer on the passion of love.

You gaze TO-DAY while You are You—how then
To-mMORROW, You, when shall be You no more?

“ Waste not your Hour, nor in the vain pursuit
Of This and That endeavour and dispute ;
Better be jocund with the fruitful grape
Than sadden after none, or bitter, Fruit.

“YESTERDAY “Ads day’s madness did prepare ;
To-morrow’s Silence, Triumph, or Despair :
Drink! for you know not whence you came, nor why :
Drink ! for you know not why you go, nor where.”

This is the old conclusion at which the Jewish sensualists
of Alexandria arrived, and which is combated so vigorously
in the Book of Wisdom. This is the practical outcome of
the fool’s philosophy so pithily characterised by the Psalmist
(Ps. xiv. liii.), and glanced at by the Apostle of the Gen-
tiles: “Let us eat and drink, for to-morrow we die” (1 Cor.
xv. 32). This is the real logical result of all atheistic or
agnostic theories of philosophy, however the devisers and
founders of new systems may attempt to deny it.

The explanation given of the passion of love forms one
of the strangest dogmas of the Pessimist philosophy. It is
highly conducive to immorality, and the more hateful and
degrading inasmuch as the conclusions arrived at are digni-
fied with the name of “science.” It is only possible to allude
briefly to this subject. Though Schopenhauer was an idealist
in his philosophical principles, he expresses on this point
views closely akin to those of the materialistic philosophers of
the present day. Schopenhauer maintains that the feeling of
affection with which two young persons who are “in love”
regard each other is but the working of “the will of the
species” seeking an objectification of its nature in a new
individual. He maintains, no doubt, that there is no con-

1 Omar Khayyam, stanzas liii. liv. Ixxiv. See the Ruddiydt of Omar Khavydm

and the Saldmdn and Absdl of Fdmt, rendered into English verse. London:
Bernard Quaritch, 1879.

Evil results of such teachings. 169

sciousness of this “will” present to the mind of the lovers
But, if it be borne in mind that this philosophy recognises
nothing which in a Jewish or Christian sense can be pro-
perly termed “sin,” and that its “ethics” such as they are,
are based not upon moral grounds but upon metaphysical
arguments, the practical danger to morality can easily be
. conceived when all “love” is traced up to the “genius of
species” represented anthropomorphically as plotting certain
results. The longings of the “lover” and the pains of love
are described as “the sighs of the spirit of species,” and
Schopenhauer informs us that that “genius in carrying out
his purposes despises all human arrangements, such as mar-
riage contracts and vows, and blows away like chaff all con-
siderations which oppose the aim and object he has in view.
Honour, duty, fidelity, yield to him alone, after they have
withstood every other temptation, even the threat of death.” 1

It may be argued that this is only a scientific statement,
and no incentive is thereby given to immorality. But it
must be noted that Schopenhauer does not stop here. The
preservation of a woman’s honour he traces only to a feminine
esprit de corps, while he observes that the esprit de corps of
men on such points is different from that of women.? Eduard

1 See Schopenhauer in chap. 44 of his Welt als Wille u. Vorstellwng, entitled
‘*Metaphysik der Geschlechtsliebe.” On page 6zyhe says: ‘‘ Dieses Forschen:
und Priifen [mit welchem zwei junge Leute verschiedenen Geschlechts einander
betrachten] ist die Meditation des Genius der Gattung, iiber das durch sie beide
mdgliche Individuum und die Kombination seiner Eigenschaften. . . . Der-
gestalt also meditirt in allen, die zeugungsfahig sind, der Genius der Gattung das
kommende Geschlecht. Die Beschaffenheit desselben ist das grosse Werk womit
Cupido, unablassig thatig, spekulirend und sinnend, beschiaftigt ist.” See also
p. 632, and p. 633: ‘‘Ihm allein weichen daher Ehre, Pflicht und Treue,
nachdem sie jeder andern Versuchung, nebst der Drohung des Todes, wider-
standen haben.”” And on p. 634 he says that the Genius der Gattung ‘‘seine,
endlosen Generationen angehérenden Zwecke verfolgend solche Menschensatzungen
und Bedenken wie Spreu wegblast.” See also Sully’s Pessimism, p. 60 ff., and
v. Hartmann’s Philosophie des Unbewussten, 318, Aufl., Berlin, 1871, on ‘‘Das
Unbewusste in der geschlechtlichen Liebe.”

? Schopenhauer, Parerga u. Paralipomena, p. 387 ff. Werke, vol. 5.

170 Fearful results of Pesstmism.

von Hartmann also observes that the natural instinct of men
is in favour of polygamy, and that of women in favour of mono-
gamy, hence, where men exercise exclusive rule, polygamy is
lawful; but where, owing to a higher civilization, men have
conceded to women a more honourable position, monogamy
alone is recognised as legal, though the law to this effect is
not practically observed by men in any quarter of the world.!

The acceptance of such a philosophy must of necessity
lead many of its followers with “no fear of God before their
eyes” (Ps. xxxvi. 1) to follow their so-called “instincts,”
whenever they can do so without inconvenience to themselves.
“ Nature,” observes Schopenhauer, * only knows the physical
not the moral, hence there is a decided. antagonism between
it and morality.”* And if there be no God over all, whose
laws we, as His creatures, are bound to obey, we cannot
blame men for acting like “children of nature.” Venetianer,
pessimist though he is, has pointed out some terrible con-
clusions which result from Schopenhauer’s theories.? But
there are still lower “depths of Satan,” when the vilest
of all human crimes, that referred to by St. Paul in the
Epistle to the Romans (i. 27), is apologised for as an attempt
of nature to prevent the depravation of the species. Such a

1 E, v. Hartmann’s Philosophie des Unbewussten, p. 201. See our remarks on
p. 210, Note, however, that monogamy prevails among Hindus.

2 Morality itself is described by von Hartmann as only a middle step between
the unrestrained affirmation of the will to live and its negation, it is merely a
palliative, whilst the latter is the radical cure. See his Phenomenologie des sittl.
Bewussts., Ὁ. 42.

3. See Venetianer, Schopenhauer als Scholastiker, pp. 264-270.

4 See Schopenhauer’s Appendix to his chapter on the ‘‘ Metaphysik der
Geschlechtsliebe,” in his Melt als [Ville u. Vorstellung, p. 650. He says:
‘«Demnach griff die in Folge ihrer eigenen Gesetze in die Enge getriebene Natur,
mittelst Verkehrung des Instinkts, zu einem Nothbehelf, einem Stratagem, ja
man mochte sagen, sie bauete sich eine Eselsbriicke; um, wie oben dargelegt, von
zweien Uebeln dem grésseren zu entgehen. Sie hat nimlich den wichtigen Zweck
im Auge, ungliicklichen Zeugungen vorzubeugen, welche allmiilig die ganze
Species depraviren konnten, und da ist sie, wie wir gesehen haben nicht skru-
pulds in der Wahl der Mittel, Der Geist, in welchem sie hier verfahrt, ist derselbe

Rapid progress of Pessimism. 171

philosophy, despite the efforts to trick it out with all the
adornments which a vigorous and racy style can bestow, can
only justly be described in the language of the Apostle as
“earthly, sensual, demoniacal” (James iii. 15). ᾿

The rapid progress of Pessimism makes it impossible to
ignore its existence. Its popularity in Germany at the pre-
sent time is owing partly to circumstances connected with
the political and social life of that country, partly also to
the vigorous style of its first apostle, as well as to the fact that
Schopenhauer and von Hartmann have addressed themselves
not only to the students of philosophy but to the ordinary
class of readers. Unverified as are many of the doctrines of
“scientific pessimism,” and palpably erroneous as are some
of its scientific statements, its doctrines have been defended
with no little parade of an acquaintance with modern science
in all departments. The Philosophy of the Unconscious by
von Hartmann is avowedly constructed upon the latest
results of biology. It is satisfactory, therefore, to observe
that an eminent biologist like Professor Oscar Schmidt has
pronounced that philosopher mistaken in his interpretation of
biological phenomena, and has pointed: out numerous errors
into which he has fallen.!

We are not forgetful of the fact that Pessimism has certain
points of truth ; and there is something to admire, while there
is, perhaps, more to condemn in the writings referred to. It
does not come within the limits of our subject to notice the
better features of this philosophy. Its appearance at the
present time may be regarded in some aspects as seasonable,

in welchem sie wie oben, Kapitel 27, angefiihrt die Wespen antreibt, ihre Jungen
zu erstechen (He refers to Kirby and Spence’s Zntomology, vol. i. p- 374] : denn
in beiden Fallen greift sie zum Schlimmen, um Schlimmern zu entgehen ; sie fiihrt
den Geschlechtstrieb irre, um seine verderblichsten Folgen zu vereiteln.”

1 Die naturwissenschaftlichen Grundlagen der Philosophie des Unbewussten,
yon Oscar Schmidt, Professor der Zoologie und vergleichenden Anatomie in
Strassburg. Leipzig: Εν A. Brockhaus, 1877. See also a sketch of the con-
clusions arrived at by this scholar in Sully’s Pessimism, pp. 201-5.

172 Elements of truth in Pessimism.

for its tendency is not only to prevent men from being satis-
fied with that superficial optimism which has long borne sway,
but also to keep them from too quickly imbibing the more
novel doctrines of the new philosophy of “ Meliorism,” which,
though adopted by Sully and other able English writers, rest
in our opinion upon no very firm philosophical basis, though
for a season Meliorism may also subserve a useful purpose.
Pessimism, to whatever extravagant lengths it may logically
conduct its adherents, is one of the natural outcomes of a
materialism which denies the existence of a God, and of an
agnosticism which regards the existence of the Divine Being
as outside and beyond all human knowledge, It is well in
some respects that the choice should lie between the accept-
ance of Christianity on the one hand, and of Pessimism on
the other. Pessimism has unquestionably made considerable
progress in philosophical circles, and has spread: itself even
more widely among the middle classes. It already counts
adherents in England and America, and its tenets continually
turn up in unexpected quarters. It is, therefore, no proof
of wisdom to seek to ignore its existence or to refuse to take
notice of the approaching danger.

The doctrines of this modern school, the reader cannot
fail to have observed, bear a close resemblance to the prin-
ciples of Buddhism. But, although Buddhism teaches that
existence is an evil which the wise man will seek to get rid
of, that system does not so directly lead to immorality and
suicide as the doctrines of Schopenhauer and von Hartmann,
if carried out to their logical consequences. For Buddhism
maintains that there is a life after death, and a transmigra-
tion of souls in the case of the wicked, and. of those who are
deficient in virtue! There is, according to Buddhism, some-

1 Schopenhauer actually exhibits some leaning in. this direction. He remarks
in his Welt als Wille und Vorstellung that there is some relation between the
number of births and deaths. He notes that in the fourteenth century after the

Resemblance of Pessimism to Buddhism. 173

thing which the wicked may well fear, and something which
the upright may desire to attain. The Buddhist dreads to be
involved in an indefinite rotation of births, followed in each
case by decay and death. The object of his desire is not
merely to escape from life in one form, but from existence
in. any shape whatever, and to reach, as speedily as possible,
his haven of rest and “city of peace,” the Nirvana where
desire is totally extinct. Nirvana is not, indeed, philo-
sophically speaking, identical with annihilation, but it is a
suspension from all exercise of thought and will, and has
been described as “a perfect and unutterable tranquillity,
for ever imperturbable, including exemption from all pain
and uneasiness, and deliverance from the terrible law of
transmigration.” ἢ

great mortality caused by the Black Death in the Old World a very great increase
of births took place with a large proportion of twins. In proof of this he refers
to Schnurrer’s Chronik der Seuchen, 1825, and observes that Caspar confirms the
principle that the number of births and deaths in every place rises and falls
proportionately. See his Werke, vol. iii. p. 577. In connexion with the strange
inclination towards Buddhism exhibited by this philosopher, it may be worth
while quoting here an anecdote told by his biographer Gwinner (Zeden, p. 547).
He says that in a corner of Schopenhauer’s room, tpon a marble slab, stood a
gilded statuette of Buddha. When Schopenhauer got the statuette from Paris in
1856, after removing the black polish with which it was covered, he stood con-
templating it with satisfaction in the presence of his Roman Catholic servant
(who had erected for herself in her own room a small altar richly adorned with
artificial flowers). The latter, however, soon burst out into coarse laughter, saying,
“he sits there just like a tailor.’ Schopenhauer was seriously offended at her re-,
mark and observed, ‘‘she is a rude person to speak thus of the Victoriously-
Perfected One! Have I ever abused her Lord God?” Such an expression might
have been reasonably expected from the lips of a Buddhist, scarcely from those
of a philosopher.

1 Kalisch, in Path and Goal, pp. 447-8. It is difficult to ascertain exactly
what is meant by Nirvana. Spence Hardy observes. that the notices of Nirvana
in the sacred kooks are few, not by any means so frequent as we should have
supposed from the importance of the subject in the system of Buddhism. He
maintains that ‘‘that which is void, that has no existence, no continuance,
neither birth nor death, that is subject to neither cause nor effect, and that pos-
sesses none of the essentialities of being, must be the cessation of existence,
nihilism, or non-entity.”—Legends and Theories of the Buddhists, p. 174. On the
other hand Rhys Davids, who is perhaps even a greater authority, maintains that
it is “‘the extinction of that sinful grasping condition of mind and heart, which

174 Buddhism aud Pessimism.

The misery of human life is the starting-point of Buddhism
as well as of Pessimism. The former has assumed the
dogma as a fact; the latter seeks to demonstrate its truth
by a variety of arguments.! Buddhism, as it has been well

would otherwise, according to the great mystery of Karma, be the cause of
renewed individual existence.” It is evidently then a cessation of individual
existence though it may imply “ideas of intellectual energy,” and if not actual
annihilation, leads to it. ‘* Death, utter death, with no life to follow is then
a result of, but it isnot Nirvana.” See Rhys David’s Buddhism: being a Sketch
of the Life and Teachings of Gautama, the Buddha. London: 5. P. C. Κὶ
1880,

Professor Beal's remarks on the subject are also worthy of notice here. He
says :—

“Tt appears that the idea of annihilation as the one equivalent of Nirvana
must be confined (if at all) to one period only in the history of the system, and
that period one during which scholastic refinement’ sought to explain or define
that which is, in its very nature, incapable of definition, viz., the condition of
the Infinite ; for, all along, Buddhism assumes {παι {πὲ same condition awaits the
‘emancipated soul’ as is enjoyed by the Supreme Mind, and hence the constant
reference to the state of the soul that has gone across (paramét4) to that shore
where there is no ‘birth or death.’ This state, because it admits of no positive
definition, is described wd remotionis, 1.6. by stripping from it every conceivable
imperfection, and the process is carried to such an extent by the subtle logic of
the schools that at length nothing is left for the mind to lay hold of, and this
is the annihilation spoken of. But in the earliest and latest schools there is a
different complexion given to the idea of Nirvana. In the first period the thought
seems to have been simply confined to a state of rest—rest or escape from all
possible sorrow ; and at this state, without attempting to describe or define it,
Buddha directed his followers to aim. In the latest school, the idea of Nirvdna
was ‘restoration to the true condition of Being.’ It would be tedious to bring
proofs of this, for many of the latest works or Sfitras consist of the one idea,
that there is but one Nature, to which all other Natures must in the end return ;
and this ‘return’ or ‘ultimate union’ is the perfection of the one nature of
Buddha.”—Beal (Samuel), A Catena of Buddhist Scriptures from the Chinese,
London: Triibner, 1871. See note 2, next page, and the supplementary note at
the end of this chapter (p. 182) on Dr. Oldenberg’s recent work.

1 Sully has pointed out that the empirical proofs adduced by von Hartmann
in favour of Pessimism are unsatisfactory. Many of the statements of von
Hartmann respecting the illusory character of human progress are founded on
arbitrary assumptions. For instance, he asserts that the amount of immorality
is to be regarded as a constant quantity ; that diseases increase in a greater ratio
than the remedies ; that industrial progress has achieved nothing positive for the
happiness of mankind ; that the sense of misery arising from the fierce uncon-
trolled passions of savage races ‘‘is equalled by the sum of misery arising from
the prudentially restrained but still active immoral tendencies of civilized society.”
Sully notes that a general theory of pleasure and pain is still far from complete,

The selfishness of Buddhism. 175

observed, builds “not on conscience but on man’s craving
for happiness, and its ultimate end is not to free man from
inward evil, but to emancipate him from misery, that is,
from existence.”!_ Hence, notwithstanding all its pretensions,
it is, as popularly understood, essentially selfish in its aims;
for, although it inculcates brotherly love and sympathy, it
urges men to practise these virtues with the view only of
personal advantage, namely, with the direct object of reach-
ing the perfect calm of unconsciousness. The truth of this
charge has no doubt been called in question, and probably
with some amount of truth. For it is:argued that the Bud-
dhist in striving toward this object is impelled also by the
belief, that he is helping to lessen the aggregate sum of
human misery, and aiding on the progress of the universe
to its goal of non-existence. 3

and that it is impossible to estimate scientifically the relative value of different
kinds of pleasure. He maintains that happiness 15. ἃ balance of pleasure, and,
though happiness is unattainable here, when thought of as an unbroken state
of delicious excitement, yet it is to a very considerable extent attainable as an
object of human pursuit. Sully admits that ‘‘the view of the present life
as. an opportunity of laying the foundations of our eternal well-being, or of
helping to secure this immeasurable good for the souls of our fellow-men, has
no doubt, its unique value as a stimulus to human effort.” He observes also that
“if men are to abandon all hope of a future life the loss in point of cheering
and sustaining influence will be a vast one, and one not to be made good, so
far as I can see, by any new idea of services to collective humanity ;” and yet
he remarks sadly in the next paragraph that ‘‘it is one thing to see the limits
of an object, another to deny it its proper magnitude. After all, this earthly
life may be our sole portion, and it is well not to dismiss it from view too scorn-
fully.” —Fessimism : A History and a Criticism, p. 250 ff., p. 303 ff. and p. 317.
We maintain that it is only a one-sided induction that can lead to any such miser-
able conclusion. Some valuable remarks on Sully’s standpoint will be found
in Professor Flint’s Anti-Theistic Theories, being the Baird Lectures Sor 1877
(Edin. and Lond. : Blackwood & Sons, 1880).

1 Dods’ Mohammed, Buddha and Christ, 1878, p. 169. Kalisch has well
contrasted Christianity and Buddhism in his Path and Goal, pp. 456-7.

2 So Rhys Davids in Contemporary Review, 1877, but see Dods’ remarks on
p. 171 of his book. The former scholar observes, in his excellent sketch of Bud-
dhism referred to in our previous note: ‘the true Buddhist saint does not mar the
purity of his self-denial by lusting after a positive happiness, which he himself shall
enjoy hereafter. His consciousness will cease to feel, but his virtue will live and

176 Christianity charged with selfishness.

The same charge of selfishness may, indeed, with some
show of justice, even be brought against Christianity. All
creeds must begin with the individual, and hence ate more
or less open to the charge of egoism. Starting from the
standpoint presented by Judaism, that “all have sinned and
come short of the glory of God,” Christianity makes known
first to individuals a salvation designed and procured by
God’s fatherly love for all men, and insists on the necessity
of “holiness without which no man can see the Lord” (Heb.
xii. 14). It presses upon its followers the duty of doing
good unto all men, and exhorts them to work for the sal-
vation of the whole human race, taking as their noblest
motive, “the love of Christ constraineth us” (2 Cor, v. 14).
But it does not ignore the great fact that the love of self
is implanted in our very nature, although it warns men
against the sin of “selfishness,” and seeks, by the principle
of love, to transform the love which: begins with self into
the love of God.

work out its full effect in the decrease of the sum of the misery of sentient beings.”
Rhys David notes in continuation: ‘‘Most forms of Paganism past and present
teach men to seek for some sort of happiness here. Most other forms of belief
say that this is folly, but the faithful and the holy shall find happiness hereafter
in a better world beyond. Buddhism maintains that the one hope is as hollow
as the other; that the consciousness of self is a delusion; that the organized
being, sentient existence, since it is not infinite, is: bound up inextricably with
ignorance, and therefore with sin, and therefore with sorrow. ‘Drop then
this petty foolish longing for personal happiness,’ Buddhism would say! ‘ Here
it comes of ignorance, and leads to sin, which leads to sorrow; and there the
conditions of existence are the same, and each newbirth will leave you ignorant
and finite still. There is nothing eternal ; the very kosmos itself is passing away ;
nothing is, everything becomes ; and all that you see and feel, bodily or men-
tally, of yourself will pass away like everything else ; there will only remain
the accumulated result of all your actions, words, and thoughts. Be pure, then,
and kind, not Jazy in thought. Be awake, shake off your delusions, and enter
resolutely on the ‘Path’ which will lead you away from these restless tossing
waves of the ocean of life,—the Path to the Joy and Rest of the Nirvana of
Wisdom and Goodness and Peace!’ "—Buddhism, pp. 104-5.

1 See also remarks in chap. viii, on Koh. xi. 2. In-Row’s remarkable work, 7he
σις of the Evangelists (2nd ed. London: Fred. Norgate, 1880), the necessity of
appealing to an enlightened self-love as a motive for human action is well pointed

The Pessimism of Fudaism and Christianity. 177

Christianity is pessimistic in so far as it recognises that
“the world is out of course” on account of sin, and that
“the world” as it is “lies under the power of the Evil One”
(1 John v. 19), This is also the doctrine of the Old Testa-
ment. For Judaism, notwithstanding Schopenhauer’s asser-
tions to the contrary, has also a pessimistic side. Judaism
and Christianity both recognise the fact that “the whole
creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now”
(Rom. viii. 22). The doctrine that “all things work together
for good to those that love God ” (Rom. viii. 28) was taught
even in the Old Testament, and the Book of Job was written
with the distinct object of pointing out that afflictions and
sorrows are not always to be regarded as marks of the
Divine displeasure, but are often permitted in order to purify
the righteous, and to test their integrity. Inasmuch as
pain and misery exist in this world, Christians are taught
by their great Master not to endeavour to go out of the
world, but continuing in the same to seek to be preserved
from the evil that abounds in it (John xvii. 15), while
working for the good of others. They are not called upon
to become ascetics, though “bodily exercise is profitable for
a little,’ but to “exercise’’ themselves rather “unto godli-
ness” (1 Tim. iv. 7, 8), bearing in mind, whether they eat
or drink or whatever they do, to do all to the glory of God
(1 Cor. x. 31).

A Christian, though convinced with the Psalmist that “the
out, Bishop Butler, long ago, in his great work on The Analogy of Religion, chap.
v., has satisfactorily discussed the same subject in answer to the objections adduced
by the Deists of his day. Row derives an important argument in defence of the
historical character of the Jesus of the Evangelists from the fact that, although the
Evangelists depict our Lord Himself as a moral teacher acting on a morality
absolutely unselfish, they have narrated how He was wont to appeal to the hopes
and fears of His disciples in order to incite them to action. In so doing, the
Evangelists have ever ‘‘ preserved the clearest distinction between the morality of
the Master and that which is possible for the disciple” in a manner utterly impos-

sible to conceive, if the Evangelists be regarded as a body of credulous men spon-
taneously elaborating myths.

N

178 Christianity has an optimistic side.

earth is full of the goodness of Jahaveh ” (Ps. xxxiii. 5),—and
constrained at times, in contemplation of the glories of
created nature! (Ps. Ixv., civ. cxlv.), to sing and make
melody with his heart unto God (Eph. ν. 19)—may, when
viewing the life of man from another standpoint, consistently
express himself in a different strain. Thus the Christian
poet Quarles, though he firmly believed in a life of glory
beyond the grave, has used language quite as pessimistic as
that of Koheleth :—

“ F’en so this little world of living clay,
The pride of nature, glorified by art,
Whom earth adores, and all her hosts obey,
Allied to Heaven by his diviner part,
Triumphs awhile, then droops, and then decays,
And, worn by age, death cancels all his days.

“Thus man that’s born of woman can remain
But a short time: his days are full of sorrow ;
His life’s a penance, and his death’s a pain,
Springs like a flower to-day, and fades to-morrow ;
His breath’s a bubble, and his day’s a span,
’Tis glorious misery to be born-a man!” 2

Christianity, however, no less than Judaism has its optimistic
side. It declares emphatically the blessedness of existence
by its doctrines of the Fatherhood of God, of a life of happi-
ness beyond the grave, and of a resurrection to everlasting
glory. If the New Testament Scriptures teach the doctrine
of the destruction of the ungodly, they teach also that God
is “the Saviour of all men, specially of them that believe”
(1 Tim. iv. 10). If Christ speaks of His people as “ἃ little
flock” to whom it is “the Father’s good pleasure to give the

1 It must not be forgotten that Schopenhauer had also an eye for the beauti-
ful. He says in his Welt als Hille und Vorstellung (p. 667), on this point :
‘‘Inzwischen heisst ein Optimist nicht die Augen 6ffnen und hineinsehen in
die Welt, wie sie so schon sei, cin Sonnenschein, mit ihren Bergen, Thiilern,
Strémen, Pflanzen, Thieren, u.s.w.—Aber ist denn die Welt ein Giickkasten? Zu

sehen sind diese Dinge freilich schon ; aber sie zu sein ist ganz Anderes.”
2 Quarles’ Hieroglyphics of the Life of Man, No. 15.

Christianity a religion suited to man. 179

kingdom ” (Luke xii. 32), His words, most true when spoken,
are not to be understood as referring to the Church in all
ages, nor to be interpreted in such a manner as to contradict
the glorious vision beheld by John in Patmos, of those “ who
came out of great tribulation,” a “great multitude which
no man could number, out of every nation and of tribes
and peoples and tongues” (Rev. vii. 9). Christian theo-
logians have often, by their narrow-minded interpretation of
Scripture, put weapons into the hands of the assailants of
their holy religion. Christianity must not, however, be held
responsible for the mistakes of its disciples, and we may hope
and believe that in the great day of Jesus Christ there will
be manifested, in a far grander manner than it is now possible
to conceive, a blessed harmony between the perfect justice
and the everlasting love of the Eternal.

Christianity is a religion suited for man in his present
state. It teaches distinctly that, notwithstanding all the ruin
wrought by sin, it is possible to live to Christ on earth, and
that the life in Christ even here is a state of happiness.
“To me,” writes the Apostle, “to live is Christ, and to die
is gain” (Phil. i. 21). It looks forward, too, with hope to an
era when “the creation itself shall be delivered from the
bondage of corruption into the liberty of the glory of the
children of God” (Rom. viii. 21). Thus it has an optimistic
as well as a pessimistic side; and its optimistic features, it
is willingly conceded, though enlarged and ennobled, are
derived, more or less distinctly, from the Old Testament
revelation.?

1 The use Taubert (pp. 90-96) has made of the exaggerations which Christian
theologians have fallen into in depicting the everlasting consciousness and torture
of the ungodly in a future state on the one hand, and setting forth the doctrine of
the predestination of a special few to everlasting happiness on the other, ought

to make those who hold evangelical doctrine careful not to exaggerate the state-
ments of Holy Scripture.

* It may be well to quote’ here the words of Prof. Dr. Luthardt, in his chapter
on Pessimism in Die modernen Weltanschauungen (Leipzig, 1880), pp. 189, 190.

160 The unselfishness of Christiantty.

When the pessimist philosopher shall have shown some
evidences of love to the human race such as that which has
led missionaries of the cross to labour in foreign lands amid
difficulties and privations for the benefit of the most de-
graded and savage races; when the system they have pro-
pounded shall have exhibited some such power to raise and
improve mankind, it will be time enough to sing pzans over
the approaching downfall of Christianity and to taunt Christ-
ianity with its selfishness! While professing to be unselfish,
this newborn philosophy is convicted at the very outset of

“ Pessimism is the doctrine of hopelessness and despair. . . . Christianity
is the announcement of a hope which lifts man out of his impotence into a new
joyousness of life. The pessimist gives up the battle for lost before it is begun ;
it is all vanity. The Christian goes forward into the battle of life with the
certainty of victory. ‘ This is the victory that overcometh the world, even our
faith’ (1 John v. 4). Pessimism and Christianity are the two great contrasts,
They are, indeed, not unfrequently said to be closely related, Christianity is
pessimistic, because it declares the earth to be a vale of sorrow. Yes! they are
related, as contrasts are related. Both proclaim the misery of earth, and the
inability of one’s own will. But, while Pessimism pleases itself with the thought,
and makes pain a subject of pride; Christianity makes use of the fact to point
the look upwards to those ‘hills from whence cometh our help’ (Psalm cxxi. 1).
With the former, the preaching of the misery of life is a subject of vain-glory ;
with the latter, itis a matter of humility. . . . Both speak of the impotence
of man, but dawns understands and says with the Apostle, ‘When I am
weak then am I strong ’ ; for it is God’s strength which is powerful in our weak-
ness” [2 Cor. xii. 9, 10].

1 It is absurd and unphilosophical for persons to sneer at missions, who have
never honestly investigated the results attained by the missionary efforts of the
Churches of the Reformation in modern days. The wonderful triumphs exhibited
in Madagascar, where within very recent times the Protestant converts bravely
endured for many years a terrible persecution; the success of the Wesleyan
missions in Fiji, borne witness to by the highest’ authorities; the marvellous
results of mission work in Sierra Leone and its neighbourhood, where there exists
a large native Church supporting its own pastors and carrying on Christian work
on its own behalf among the heathen in ‘‘ the regions beyond” ; the Christianiza-
tion of New Zealand (borne witness to even by Charles Darwin); of the Sandwich
Islands ; the progress of the native church in Tinnevelly and Travancore; the
evangelization of Metlahkatlah in North-West America,—these and many other
instances of success which have resulted from modern missionary work accom-
plished by various sections of the Church of Christ can here be only alluded to.
The heroism exhibited by many a martyr in Madagascar and even in China, the
devotion of such men as Krapf and Livingstone, are proofs of the inner life
and unselfishness of true Christianity.

Practical failure of Buddhism, 181

the charge it brings against other systems. On what grounds
but such as are essentially selfish, are men urged to seek
the great “Nothing,” which is so loudly extolled as the
wished-for goal of humanity? Is it not in order to get rid of
the misery and striving of life, and to obtain rest from all
thinking, willing, and working? It is: to the credit of von
Hartmann that he has detected this defect in the original
theory of Schopenhauer, but he has only disentangled himself
from one difficulty to entangle himself the more deeply in
absurdities worse than those enunciated in Buddhism.!

Buddhism, notwithstanding its lofty pretensions, and its
remarkable philosophy, has proved a practical failure. How-
ever noble some of its principles, it has been a curse and not
a blessing in all lands wherever its system has taken root.
Its ascetics, like those of other countries and other faiths,
have not, as might have been anticipated, been able to
conqucr the tendencies of nature. It has sought not to
regulate but to overcome nature, and nature has overcome
it.

“ Naturam expellas furca, tamen usque recurret.”
Hor. Epist., i. 10, 24.

Its monasteries and abodes of contemplation have proved
frightful sources of corruption and sensuality. ‘“ That which
is born of the flesh is flesh” (John iii. 6). Its religion,
however spiritual in theory, has developed among other
things the monstrosity of praying by machinery: and prayer
wheels and prayer mills are the practical outcome of its
teaching.? It is the “old, old story,” “men professing to be

1 See Kalisch, Path and Goal, pp. 428-9, and the notes appended at the end
of his volume.

2 Lieut. Col. Prejevalsky writes : ‘‘ All lamas must be celibates, an abnormal
state, which gives rise to every kind of immorality. . . . Lamaism is the most
frightful curse of the country, because it attracts the best part of the male popula-
tion, preys like a parasite upon the remainder, and, by its unbounded influence,
deprives the people of the power of rising from the depths of ignorance into

182 Supplementary note on Buddhism.

wise have become fools” (Rom. i. 22). Are the results of
European Buddhism, as modern Pessimism may well be
termed, likely to be more beneficial ?

which they are plunged.”—Afongolia, the Tangat Country and the Solitude of
Northern Tibet, by Lieut. Col. N. Prejevalsky of the Russian Staff Corps,
translated by E. D. Morgan. London: 1876. 2 vols. vol. i, p. 80. Wilson
also says: “" Captain Harcourt, late Assistant Commissioner for the three British
Provinces of Kult, Lahaul and Spiti, alleges that there are at times scenes
of gross debauchery in the monasteries, a state of things which can be believed
when lamas and nuns are living promiscuously together,” —(Wilson’s Adode
of Snow, p. 245). The same writer has a whole chapter on Tibetan polyandry,
or the polygyny, as he prefers to call it, which is prevalent in Tibet, namely, the
custom for the same woman to be acknowledged and supported as the wife in
common of several men. Wilson, indeed, observes that C. Ἐν Koppen in his
work on Die Lamaische Hievarchie und Kirche maintains that the religion of
the country is not responsible for this enormous monstrosity, but thinks it
existed before the introduction of Buddhism, and has arisen from the desire to
set some bounds to the increase of the population. He refers to Cwsar, De
Bello Gallico, v.14, and to the Mahabharata and Ramayana where instances of
a similar custom are referred to. Sir E. Tennant also speaks of its prevalence
in the interior of Ceylon. But Wilson observes that all such cases are not to be
compared with ‘‘the regular, extensive, and solidified system of Tibetan
polyandry.”—See Andrew Wilson's Abode of Snow. Observations on a Fourncy
From Chinese Tibet to the Indian Caucasus. Edinburgh and London: Blackwood
& Sons, 1875.

SUPPLEMENTARY NOTE ON BUDDHISM,

The most recent, as well as perhaps the most careful and elaborate work on
Buddhism is that by Dr, Hermann Oldenberg, entitled Buddha, sein Leben, seine
Lehre, seine Gemeinde (Wilhelm Hertz, Berlin, 1881).. The author has pointed out
in this treatise the original teachings of Buddha himself. A translation into Eng-
lish of the work of Dr, Oldenberg has been recently executed in an able manner
by William Hoey, D,.Lit., of the Bengal Civil Service (London: Williams &
Norgate, 1882).

Oldenberg has discussed the following interesting points, namely, the growth of
Indian thought previous to the time of Buddha, and its pessimistic tendencies, as
well as the monasticism to which it gave rise. For monasticism was necessarily
the outer form of life by which the professors of a pessimistic faith sought to
attain their desired goal, the Nirvana. Dr. Oldenberg expounds the four cardinal
tenets of Buddha, viz. :—(1) the suffering of all being ; (2) the origin of suffering ;
(3) the extinction of suffering ; (4) the path to the extinction of suffering ; and
analyses the causal nexus of being, the theory of the will to live as the cause of
being, and points out the weakness of that theory. The metaphysical hypothesis
of the five constituent elements of our being is carefully discussed with special

Nirvana attainable in life. 183

reference to the question of metempsychosis and annihilation, and the meaning
of Nirvana is clearly expounded. He points out, as Rhys Davids has also done,
that the Nirvana is the state which follows the extinction of the desire to live, and
that it is attainable during life. But what follows on the death of a saint who has
attained this state? The logical reply which suggests itself to most minds on the
premises stated by Buddha is ‘‘the Nothing.” But Oldenburg shows that in the
early and primitive Buddhist Church the answer always given was, ‘‘this hath the
Exalted One (Buddha) not revealed.” In connexion with the tendency of
Schopenhauer towards asceticism, it is well to note that the first great com-
mandment laid on the Buddhist professor is, as stated by Oldenberg, ‘‘ ein
ordinirter Monch darf nicht geschlectlichen Verkehr pflegen,” ἃ. 5. w., p. 358.
We forbear to quote the conclusion of the commandment, which points out the
terrible sins, into the commission of which such unnatural and vain attempts to
overcome nature have often driven the sons of men.

Dr. William Hoey has kindly supplied me with the following remarks on the
matters alluded to above :—

** The first of the cardinal tenets of Buddha’s doctrine is a wail over the imper-
manence of everything earthly. Birth, old age, sickness, death, union with the
unloved, separation from the loved, the clinging to earthly things, these all are
suffering. The second tenet is the origin of suffering, and here we touch the
kernel of Buddhism, and are face to face with the great difficulty of the origin of
being, for being is suffering. The terms are equivalent in Buddhist thought. ‘The
thirst for being leads from birth to birth, together with lust and desire, which finds
gratification here and there; the thirst for pleasure, the thirst for power :’ this is
the origin of suffering, The third tenet is the ‘sacred truth of the extinction of
suffering,’ which is said to be accomplished by the extinction of the thirst for
being, the annihilation of desire. Buddha evidently felt that there was something
needed as an explanation and as a support of these two tenets, and hence he pro-
pounded the ‘causal nexus of being.’ It is not possible to quote the formula here
in extenso [vid. pp. 223-252 of Dr. Hoey’s translation], or to enter into the meta-
physical analysis of our being, but suffice it to say that the ultimate origin of our
being is ‘ignorance,’ the non-possession of that knowledge which is comprised in
the four sacred tenets or truths. ‘ The ultimate root of all suffering is the delusion
which conceals from man the true being, and the true value of the system of the
universe. Being is suffering ; but ignorance totally deceives us as to this suffering ;
it causes us to see instead of suffering a phantom of happiness and pleasure.
From ignorance come ‘conformations,’ a term used to translate the technical
Buddhist word ‘ Saxkhéra,’ and ‘from conformations comes consciousness ;’ and
it is consciousness which, entering the womb at conception, assumes some material
form. This brings us to the Buddhist idea of Kamma [Kamma is the Pali form
of the Sansk. Karma] or moral retribution. Whatever a man is is the result of
former action, and hence his present state of being involves that some other unit
of. being occupied his place at a former time, and acted through ignorance so as to
necessitate a re-birth. The cutting off of re-birth can only be attained by the
attainment of knowledge, 1.6. of the four cardinal truths, and the extinction of
ignorance and desire,—the extinction of all clinging to the earthly. To express
this clinging figurative word is used, and the underlying figure is that of flame.
A flame feeds on wood or other fuel, and not only devours it but also goes out on

184 Supplementary note on Buddhism.

the air, seeking other fuel. This is the state of our:being ; it is a continuous pro-
cess of burning. The wise man does not supply the fuel to the flame of desire.
He extinguishes desire (for being) and all thirst. His state is that of ‘ Nirvana.’
The ignorant man, on the other hand, supplies fuel to the flame, and the flame of
existence presses on in transmigration to further stages of being. The cessation
of clinging to being may begin at any moment, and. from that moment Nirvana
begins.

“The fourth tenet of Buddhism is the path to the extinction of suffering, and
is a rule of life leading to pure habits of thought and action. The scope of
Buddhist ethics is very different from that of the Christian. Buddhism does not
recognise the will of a supreme lawgiver, or the principle of the good of others as
a rule to regulate conduct. The Buddhist practises any course of good action
solely because it is the best policy, not because it is right.

“ΤῸ the Buddhist, ‘soul,’ as we understand it, is unknown. The identity of a
soul, or the continuity of consciousness in transmigration is not a Buddhist tenet.
The continuity of being, or of Kamma (the inner form of life), is all the Buddhist
propounds. The usual illustration is that of a lamp, where the flame is continu-
ous, but not identical at all hours of the night.

‘The Buddhist analyses our being thus ; corporeal form, sensations, perceptions,
conformations [p. 245, et passim, Dr. Hoey’s translation], and consciousness. Each
of these ceases to exist at death. Does this cessation of earthly existence imply
ἃ total cessation of being? This is the vexata questio of Buddhist metaphysics,
and a clear discussion of the matter is given in Oldenberg’s work [Transl. pp.
267-285]. On this point ‘ Buddha has revealed nothing.’ Buddha did not deem
it advisable to dwell on what might be hereafter, but only on the suffering of
life, its cause, and the path to its extinction by the extinction of desire. Every-
where the cry is suffering, and the problem which Buddha desired to solve was the
extinction of suffering, not the penetration of that which lies beyond death.”

CHAPTER VII.

THE PESSIMISM OF THE BOOK OF KOHELETH, ESPECI-
ALLY IN RELATION TO A FUTURE STATE AND
THE CHARACTER OF WOMEN, CONTRASTED WITH
MODERN PESSIMISM.

185

CHAPTER VII.

Koheleth’s belief in a God, 187—God directs all the events of human life, 187—
And makes all beautiful in its season, 188—The vanity of philosophizing, 189—
All the working out of a Divine plan, 189—Koheleth’s tendency to fatalism kept
in check by his creed, 1902—Does death put an end to the difference between
men and brutes? 191—The spirit of man and that of beast, 191—The interro-
gative rendering of the passage (chap. iii. 19), 192—The interrogative rendering
not suggestive of doubt, 192—The expression ‘‘ upwards and downwards,” 193
—Aphorism in the Book of Proverbs, 193—No contradiction in the words of
Koheleth, 193—The idea of eternity implanted in man, 193—Different ren-
dering of the passage, 195—The ‘‘ world” or ‘‘ eternity,” 195—Man’s thoughts
grasp after eternity, 196—Koheleth’s idea of a future state obscure, 197—
Cheerless and gloomy, 198—Anecdote of the Talmud respecting the dead as
knowing nothing, 198—Other attempts to explain, 199—Koheleth’s idea of the
dead as unconscious, 199— But destined to be awakened, 200—Imperfections
of knowledge permitted, 200—The difference between Koheleth’s pessimism
and that of modern days, 201—The grave an eternal home, 201—Practical
lessons learned by Koheleth, 202—His description of the evil woman, 202—
Agreement with the Book of Proverbs, 202—Degradation of women under
Persian rule, 202—‘‘One in a thousand,” 203—Kohceleth’s opinion of men in
general, 204—Proverbs relative to woman, 204—Principle on which proverbs
are framed, 205—Contradictory proverbs, 205—Jewish proverbs respecting
women, 205—Koheleth no woman-hater, 206—Low views of women held by
Pessimists, 207—Opinions of Schopenhauer and yon Hartmann, 207—One-
sided evidence, 208—Schopenhauer on women’s intellectual powers, 208—von
Hartmann’s view of the want of rectitude in women, 209—The Pessimists on
female education, 210—Schopenhauer’s approval of the position of women in
the East, 210—von Hartmann on the advantage of female suciety, 211—Vene-
tianer’s critique of Schopenhauer’s views as unphilosophical, 212—Monogamy
and polygamy, 212—Schopenhauer’s praise of Mormons, 212—Degradation of
the fernale an outcome of atheism, 213—Woman a help-meet for man, 214.

186

CHAPTER VII.

THE PESSIMISM OF THE BOOK OF KOHELETH, ESPECIALLY
IN RELATION TO A FUTURE STATE AND THE CHAR-
ACTER OF WOMEN, CONTRASTED WITIL MODERN PES-
SIMISM.

IN our preceding chapter we have given a sketch, necessarily
imperfect in many particulars from its brevity, of some
of the leading doctrines of modern Pessimism, and of that
remarkable Oriental philosophy to which the system of
Schopenhauer and von Hartmann owes so many of its lead-
ing features. We have now to notice more in detail the
pessimistic view of human life, and of its anxieties and
sorrows as set forth in the pages of the wise Koheleth.

However constrained by the facts which came under his
own observation to take a pessimistic view of life as a whole,
and however boldly he ventures to give utterance to his
sentiments on this head, Koheleth everywhere expresses an
unshaken belief in the existence of a God, who is not con-
ceived of as withdrawn from connexion with the world, but
as presiding over that world, which was originally called into
being by the exercise of His Divine power and will.

God, according to Koheleth, makes a distinction even in His
mundane arrangements between the sinner and the righteous.
Koheleth was not blind, however, to the numerous exceptions
in violation of this general rule which are to be met with.
Man is under the government of a power above and beyond
him, without whose permission he cannot even enjoy life.

All events on earth are directed by God, who has ap-
187

188 FTuman events directed by God.

pointed a season for everything and a time for every purpose
under heaven. Birth and death, planting and uprooting,
slaying and healing, take place according to the Divine ar-
rangements. There are seasons appointed for pulling down
and for building up, times for weeping and for laughter, days
for mourning and for dancing. The times and occasions for
each of what are termed the ordinary events of human life
are all ordered by this superhuman power. It overrules also
the extraordinary occurrences which happen in human his-
tory. Times of war and peace, though apparently brought
about by the exercise of man’s free action (which is not
denied), are still under the control of the Most High.

Man, however, has no profit in all his labour, for he has
no certain power to regulate his own destiny. His utmost
efforts may result in failure. All is a sore labour which
God hath given to the sons of men to plague themselves
withal. It is remarkable that even here, when the discontent
of Koheleth seemed to be reaching a climax, his faith was
able to pierce some way through the dark clouds, and he
appears to have caught a glimpse of the grandeur and sub-
limity of the Divine actions, notwithstanding the mystery in
which they were enwrapped. For Koheleth added, “all this,
however, God hath so designed as to be even beautiful in its
season.” Rashi gives a striking interpretation of this saying :
“At a good season to reward good works is beautiful, and at
an evil season to punish evil works is becoming.” ἢ

The powerlessness of man, and his shortsightedness with
regard to his fate are set forth in other passages. All things
are conditioned by a higher power. The actions of the wise

1 Rashi’s commentary on chap. iii. 11 is as follows: sis NAD ADA nya
ryan wy ovdend wen Ane myn nyar aA neyo oot obwn
Hengstenberg observes on this that even ‘‘ things which in and for themselves are
evil must occur in such a connexion that they further the good purposes of God.
Only at such a fit season are they beautiful, and then they form an indispensable
link in the chain of this world’s events.”

The vanity of philosophizing. 189

and the righteous are “in the hand of God.” “Man knoweth
not love or hatred, all lies before them” (chap. ix. 1 ff). In
other words, there are events connected with man’s own being,
circumstances which will happen in an individual’s history,
which will necessarily call forth his love or hatred; but
all such things are concealed in a futurity impenetrable to
the sons of men. Events of all kinds le before us; that
which will actually occur is known to God. ΑἹ] things seem,
indeed, to a casual observer, to be governed by chance, and
the heart of man is full of evil. Madness is in men’s hearts
during their lives, and then they pass onward—“to the
dead.” Men may talk much concerning the dealings of God,
but the multiplication of words on such a subject is vain,
fools prate often about things too high for them (chap. x.
12-14); “who can dispute with Him that is stronger than
he?” Hence men, conscious of their own ignorance and
weakness, should fear God and submit to His decrees. For
no man knows what is really good for him, what position it
is best for him to occupy, or how to conduct himself properly
under difficult circumstances—while as to the future, whether
it is near or far off, he understands nothing (chap. vi. 10-12).
Thus Koheleth forcibly points out the vanity of all that
philosophising which man is naturally prone to engage
in. He was, however, very far from abandoning himself to
atheistic conclusions. Though unable to explain the diffi-
culties which beset life, he was able at least to rest on the
thought that everything occurs according to the working
out of a Divine plan. He had, indeed, himself laboured to
get practical wisdom, and having attained that object, he
applied himself to examine into the toil which man has to
undergo on the earth. The result of his search was to
ascertain clearly that man could not find out the work of
God which was done under the sun (chap. viii. 16-17). “The
distinguishing characteristic of the wise,” as Delitzsch has

190 The cxtstence of fixed laws in Nature.

well observed, “is not so much the actual possession of
wisdom as the striving after it. The wise man strives after
knowledge, but the highest problems remain for him un-
solved, and his ideal of knowledge is unrealized.”

If a tendency to fatalism is exhibited in certain passages
of this book, it is kept in check by the firm hold which the
religious creed of Koheleth had upon his mind. As a dis-
tinguished Jewish critic, Derenbourg, writes: “ The idea of a
just God had penetrated too profoundly into the heart of
Koheleth not to restrain his disappointed and discontented
spirit. It is this that gives the peculiar charm to his little
book; it is scepticism tempered and limited by the impas-
sable barrier which that dogma, which was the base and
centre of Judaism, opposed to it.” +

It is interesting to note that Koheleth expresses his belief
in the existence of fixed laws in nature. This is the real
meaning of a passage, frequently and yet strangely adduced
as. a proof-text in support of the idea that the final destiny
of man is irrevocably fixed at death. We refer, of course,
to chap. xi. 3: “If the clouds are full of rain, they empty
themselves on the earth, and if a tree fall toward the north
or the south, in the place where the tree falleth there it shall
116." Koheleth, as the context of the passage shows, refers
to the fact that men know not what misfortunes may take
place on earth, many calamities which fall upon individuals
being the result of laws beyond human control. We ought,
therefore, in all cases to remember that such contingencies
may happen, though we ought not to permit the possibility
of such accidents to make us inactive. The wise man will
have boldness and courage to act in the same way as if
confident that success would attend his efforts, although fully

1. Notes détachées sur l’Ecclésiaste in the Revae des Etudes Juives, No. 2, Oct.-
Dec., 1880, Paris: 17, Rue St. Georges.
2 See our remarks in chap, viii, p, 229.

Koheleth on the difference between man and beast. 191

conscious that the future depends upon a higher power and
will than his own.

The darkest feature in the Book of Koheleth is the uncer-
tainty which the writer seemed to feel as to the doctrine of a
future state of existence, and the cheerless view he expresses
concerning the state of the dead. In chap. iii. 19 ff. Koheleth
speaks as if he regarded man and beast as merely the
creatures of chance, the actions of men being often dependent
upon accidental circumstances, and man and beast alike being
subject to the inexorable law of death. The language used by
him on this subject is indeed so general in its terms, that he
has often been charged with believing that death finally puts
an end to all distinction between man and the brute creation.
Koheleth contemplates the matter, however, solely from the
standpoint of the present life. He makes no allusion to the
explanation which the Book of Genesis gives of the entrance
of death into the world, although he uses the language of
that book. Nor does he speak of any distinction to be
made after death between the righteous and the wicked,
though it is almost certain from his phraseology that Ps. xlix.
14, 15 was in his mind, where that truth is plainly stated.
In the passage in chap. iii. Koheleth thinks only of the earth
under the aspect of a vast burial-place for successive genera-
tions, “All go to one place, all are from the dust, and all
return to the dust ” (chap. iii. 20).

Different translations have been proposed for the verse
which follows. Our Authorised Version renders it: “Who
knoweth the spirit of man that goeth upward and the spirit
of the beast that goeth downward to the earth?” This
version has found a few defenders in modern times (such as
Hengstenberg, Hahn, Prof. Tayler Lewis, and others). It
must be admitted that the Masorites intended their vocaliza-
tion of the text to give that turn to the passage in order to
avoid the appearance of scepticism (vid. crit.comm.). But the

192 Koheleth’s question and that of Lucretius. ἢ

ancient translators with one consent recognise the fact that the
interrogative particle, and not the article, is the true reading
in both clauses. The most eminent scholars (such as Knobel,
Ewald, and Delitzsch) agree substantially in translating the
passage: “Who knows with respect to the spirit of the sons
of men whether it goes upward, and with respect to the spirit
of the beast, whether it descends downward to the earth?”
This translation is condemned by Bullock as a rendering
which is “neither necessary nor suitable.” But he is plainly
mistaken. Apart from purely critical reasons, the rendering
of our A. V. does not suit the context, which would require
a question of a very different kind, and the analogy of the
two other passages in the book (chap. ii. 19; vi. 12), in which
the expression “who knoweth” is used, is in favour of the
opinion that the phrases which follow are really interrogative.

A similar question is found in the celebrated poem of
Lucretius (i. 113),! but the answer there designed to be given
to it is negative. The very manner in which Koheleth
puts the interrogation shows that no infidel “sneer” was
intended by him. Although forced to regard the translation
of our A.V. as incorrect, we maintain that the interrogative
clauses do not convey the insinuation that there is no differ-
ence between man and beast. On the contrary these inter-
rogative clauses suggest, if they do not actually assert, the
very opposite. Hence it is not surprising to find that the
writer at the end of his book avows his real belief as to the
future of man, and affirms that, although at death “the dust
shall return to the earth as it was,” Ze. from whence it was
originally taken (Gen. iii. 19; Ps. civ. 29), “the spirit shall
return unto God who gave it” (Koh. xii. 7).

1 His words are :
“ὁ Tgnoratur enim, que sit natura animai,
Nata sit, an contra nascentibus insinuetur ?
An simul intereat nobiscum morte diremta ὃ "ἢ

The expressions “upwards and downwards.” 193

In the passage under consideration (chap. iii. 21) reference
is made to an aphorism in the Book of Proverbs (xv. 24) in
which the peculiar expressions “upwards” and “downwards ”
occur, which are found only in these two passages of Sacred
Scripture. The aphorism in the Book of Proverbs is ren-
dered in our A. V. “the way of life is above to the wise
that he may depart from hell beneath;” Its meaning, how-
ever, is rather: “to the wise man is the way of life up-
wards,” ze. the wise man goes the way of life which leads
upwards, “in order that he may depart from Sheol (Hades)
downwards.” In other words, the wise:man proceeds on the
way of life which leads one upwards, with the distinct object
before him of escaping from that path which leads to Sheol
and ends there. Believers under the Old Testament dis-
pensation were able at times to contemplate their ultimate
deliverance from that Sheol into which, however, they
believed even the righteous had to descend at death (Ps,
xlix. 14; A. V. ver. 15). Sheol, or Hades, was regarded
by them, even in the case of the godly, as a gloomy place
of rest, and not asa place of felicity. In the passage in the
Book of Proverbs the term Sheol begins, as Delitzsch has
noted, to lose its general signification of a place in which
all the dead are gathered together without any distinction
being made between the good and {πε ἐν], and to assume a
more definite signification as the place of punishment of the
ungodly. The term “Hades” is possibly used in this latter
sense in the end of the Book of the Revelation (xx. 14),
comp. Matt. vii. 13, 14.

If this aphorism in the Book of Proverbs, and the state-
ments of Ps. xlix. 14 (to both of which passages reference
seems here to be made), be borne in mind, it is tolerably
plain that there is no contradiction between the sentiments
expressed by Koheleth in chap. iii. 21, and those given utter-
ance to at the close of his book. Koheleth was not ignorant

ο

194 Koheleth on a future state.

cf the doctrine of a future life, still less did he deny the truth
of that doctrine. If it be remembered what the teaching οἱ
the book is respecting the punishment of all transgressors
at a time and season appointed by God—a doctrine taught
not merely in the epilogue, but in other parts of the book—
it cannot but appear most unnatural to explain the return of
the spirit to God (chap. xii. 7) as signifying a mere yielding
back to God the vital breath of life which He has bestowed
on man.}

For Koheleth on several occasions calls attention to the
fact that God does not always execute judgment on men in
this world according to their deserts. He affirms that God
deals with men after this fashion in order to sift them, and to
make them feel that, when left to thémselves, they are natu-
rally like the beasts (chap. iii. 18), and conduct themselves
like wild beasts in the deeds of violence and oppression so
often committed by them against one another. One reason
why God has permitted such a state of things to exist fora
season is, in order that the character and disposition of indi-
vidual men may in all cases be made manifest by the scope
thus afforded to every one for free action ; and that the real
distinction between the righteous and the wicked may at
last become apparent to all. Though Koheleth, therefore,
asks how man can arrive at any definite conclusion even
on a question of such great importance as whether there is
really any difference between the final destination of the
spirit of man and of beast, it by no means necessarily follows
that he was himself in doubt as to the doctrine of a future
life. The longing after “eternity,” described in this very
context as implanted in the heart of man (chap. iii. 11), leads
necessarily to a belief in the existence of a life beyond the

1 Bottcher, De Jnferis, § 473, has sought to explain away chap. xii. 7 in this
manner. But the way in which the future judgment is spoken of in chap. iii. 17,
viil, 10-15, and chap. xi. 9, proves that the writer did not refer merely to a judg-
ment to be inflicted on transgressors in the present world,

Lternity implanted in man's heart. 195

grave, even though the reality of such a life cannot be
satisfactorily demonstrated by the deductions of human
reason. Man cannot by his own powers discover “that
which shall be after him” (chap. iii. 21), inasmuch as all such
knowledge has been denied to him. But the very fact of their
ignorance in such matters ought, Koheleth argues, to lead
men to enjoy all they lawfully can in this present life, ever
remembering to “fear God and keep His commandments,”
because there is a judgment after death,

The statement that “ eternity” is naturally implanted in the
heart of man (chap. iii. 11) is one of the most profound sayings
contained in this interesting book—“God hath made every-
thing beautiful in its season, also’ eternity hath He placed in
his heart, although man cannot find out the work which
God hath done from the beginning to the end.” The word
rendered here “eternity” is that translated “world” in our
A.V. The text, according to the latter translation, has often
been explained to teach that man is a little world (microcosm)
reflecting the greater world (macrocosm) in the midst of
which he is placed. His mind, to use Lord Bacon's para-
phrase, is like a mirror “capable of (reflecting) the image of
the universe, and desirous to receive it, as the eye to receive
the light.”. The “world” has been explained by others to
mean “the love of the world” so natural to the heart of man,
which in some aspects may be regarded as almost identical
with that “love of life,” that “ will to live” (Wille zum Leben),
so fiercely and so unnaturally denounced by Schopenhauer
and his school. But, however true in itself it may be that
man is ‘a little world,” and that the love of the world or of
life is natural to him, such is not the meaning of Koheleth.
The Hebrew word used by him, pd, is indeed found in the
signification of “world” in later Hebrew, and possibly it may
(though of this there is no proof) have been thus used in the
popular Hebrew spoken in the days of Koheleth. But no

196 Man's thoughts grasp after eternity.

other example of its use in that signification has been dis-
covered in the entire range of Biblical literature.’ On the
other hand, the very same word occurs several times in the
Book of Koheleth in the sense of “eternity,” 2 and in no other
signification, These considerations, apart entirely from any
argument fairly derivable from the unsuitability of such a
rendering to the context—a point as to which there is
considerable difference of opinion—are, in our judgment,
decisive against the rendering of the A. V., backed up though
that translation unquestionably is by the authority of the
LXX., Aquila, the Vulg., Jerome and many modern scholars,
such as Knobel and Ewald.

The passage (chap. iii. 11) has been well interpreted by
Delitzsch. God has assigned to each man his appointed
place, and has thus made him fully conscious that he is a
being bounded by certain limitations which cannot be passed.
God has also implanted in man’s heart impulses and desires
which are not satisfied with the things of time, but grasp at
eternity. Man would fain burst the trammels which restrain
him, but, in his discontent with the temporal, he consoles
himself with the thought of something which lies beyond it.
“That which is transient gives him no hold, it carries him
away like a rushing stream, and compels him to save himself
by seizing hold of the eternal.” But Koheleth notes that
man’s powers fail whenever he attempts to comprehend the
works and doings of God; and, notwithstanding that
“eternity” is thus implanted “in his heart,” it is practical

1 It may, however, be well to note that Rashi, Grotius, Tarnoy., Heidenheim,
etc., have translated the expression b δὴν Γλϑ 5, in Habb, iii. 6, by ‘itinera

seculi ct,” “omnia gue in mundo sunt, ipsi subsunt.” But such a rendering is now
defended by no critic, and is, moreover directly opposed by the fact that in the
same verse the phrase nip niyaa occurs, in which the woid in question is used
in the ordinary signification. " ᾿

2. It is, however, to be noted that the use of the word ‘‘eternity” in the sense
in which here alone it can be taken, 2,6. in the signification of the idea of eternity,
must in any case be regarded as unique.

Obscurity of the doctrine of a future state. 197

wisdom to content himself with that which is seen, and can
be attained here on earth.

That Koheleth, at the very moment when the gloom of
unbelief seemed to be settling down upon his soul, should
thus give expression to the conviction that there is something
grander and more noble than “things temporal,” reminds us
forcibly of the case of Job, whose faith in the advent at some
distant day of One who was to be his Avenger and Re-
deemer, burst forth suddenly, like a bright gleam of sunshine,
at. the very time when the tempest of suffering and tempta-
tion seemed well-nigh about to overwhelm his soul (Job xix.
23-27).

The belief of Koheleth, however, in a future life was far too
shadowy to lead him to “seek the things that are above”
instead of “the things that are upon the earth” (Col. iii. 1, 2).
For this end the fuller light of the New Testament dispen-
sation was imperatively needed. His knowledge of the life
beyond the present state of existence had all the imperfec-
tions which belonged to the Old Testament dispensation. A
heavy stone then lay over man’s sepulchre, and the time for it
to be rolled away had not yet fully come.

The statements of Koheleth respecting the state of the
dead show clearly that he had not those cheering views with
respect to the blessedness of the pious dead, which can alone
irradiate the darkness of the tomb. He was among those
“who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to
bondage” (Heb. ii. 15). A living dog was in his eyes better
than a dead lion (chap. ix. 4). “For the living,” he adds
almost sarcastically, “know that they shall die, but the dead
know not anything, and have no further reward (that is,
on earth), for their memory is forgotten” (chap. ix. 5, 6).
The recollection of their deeds soon passes away; new
generations spring up who trouble themselves but little about
the actions of their forefathers. Love, hatred and envy exist

198 Gloomy views of a future life.

for the dead no more. All such affections and strivings, at
least so far as the persons and things of earth are concerned,
are at an end. Those who have passed into another state
of existence have no further concern with that which is done
here on earth. Hahn adds: “In eternity they take no part
any more in that which is done under the sun. Why there-
fore should any one on earth seek to obtain anything by the
help of the dead?” This latter thought, however, does not
occur in the Book of Ecclesiastes, and cannot well be inter-
polated here.

The description of the state of the dead presented in this
passage is, it must be admitted, dark and cheerless. The
account of the shadowy existence of the dead in Hades as
set forth in Job and even in some of the Psalms is gloomy
enough. But the view of Koheleth surpasses all others in
gloominess. The Targumist has felt this, and, therefore, has
ventured to explain the text as speaking of the state of the
wicked. This interpretation is also given in the Midrash,
which ‘relates the following anccdote in explanation of the
passage :—

“ Rabbi Chiyya the elder (or the great) and Rabbi Jonathan
were walking before the bier of Rabbi Simeon ben Jose ben
Lakunya, when the tallith (or prayer-mantle) of Rabbi Jona-
than hung down upon the coffin. ‘Lift.up thy tallith, my son,
said Rabbi Chiyya to him, ‘that they (the departed) say not,
“to-morrow (even) they are coming down to us, and (yet) they
despise us.”’ ‘Rabbi,’ said Rabbi Jonathan to him, ‘is it not
written the dead know not anything. ‘My son,’ said he to
him, ‘thou knowest well the letter, but not the interpretation ;
the living know, they are the just, for even after their death
they are termed “ving; and the dead. they do not know, they
are the wicked, for even during their life they are termed
dead? ‘And how is it proved that the just are called living
even when they are dead?’ ‘Because it is written (Num.

The unconsciousness of the dead. 199

xxxii. 10), to the land which I have sworn to Abraham, Isaac,
and Facob, saying, etc. He said not 20 the fathers but to
Abraham, to Isaac, and to Facob’ He said to Moses, Go
and say to them, The oath which [ have sworn to them T have
fulfilled, as it is written to thy seed T will give it. And the
wicked are termed dead, as it is written (Ezek. xviil. 32),
7 have no pleasure in the death of him that dieth (or, the
dead). Does a dead man then die ? But these are the
wicked because in their life they are called dead.’ He (Rabbi
Jonathan) said to him, ‘Blessed be thou for teaching me the
interpretation,’ and he kissed him upon the head.”

This explanation, though ingenious, is not satisfactory.
Nor are the attempts which have been made by many Chris-
tian interpreters to evade the meaning of the passage more
so: such as, for instance, by explaining the words as those of
an atheistic objector ; or supposing that the writer speaks of a
conflict between the voice of the flesh and that of the spirit.
The same gloomy view of the state of the dead is found in
several passages of the Book of Ben Sira, though brighter and
more consoling views of the future are throughout charac-
teristic of the Book of Wisdom. The happy and cheerful
pictures of the state of the righteous after death presented
in the latter work far surpass anything to be found in the
Book of Koheleth.

But, if the passage in chap. ix. 5, 6, be taken in its most
literal signification, it does not, when viewed in connexion
with the distinct utterances of Koheleth with respect to the
final judgment of the righteous and the wicked, conduct us
to the miserable conclusions at which modern Pessimism has
arrived. If Koheleth affirms that the dead know not love,
hatred or envy, or in other words imagines that the con-
sciousness of the dead in another world is but dim and

1 It is interesting to note the resemblance of this argument to that employed by
our Lord in His controversy with the Sadducees, as.related Matt. xxii, 31, 32, etc.

2.0 The dead destined to be awakened.

shadowy, he maintains at the same time that “God will bring
every secret thing into judgment” in “His own time and
season.” Consequently the dead, even though regarded by
him as existing in a semi-conscious state in Hades, are sup-
posed to be still in existence, and destined at some future
period to be awakened out of this dreary slumber, and re-
warded according to the merit or demerit of their actions on
earth. Koheleth does not, it is true, speak of this awakening
out of sleep, still less does he allude to the resurrection
of the body. His book is mainly occupied with the search
after man’s highest good on earth, and it is only incidentally
that he refers at all to the state of the dead. Too great
stress must not, therefore, be laid upon the fact of the writer’s
silence with respect to points on which we would fain have
understood his views. Koheleth teaches that there will be
a personal judgment for every man, a judgment which will
take place at some future period, beyond man’s present state
of existence, This doctrine of a personal judgment for all
men without exception is a point on which the writer of this
strange though fascinating book exhibits a knowledge sur-
passing that of all the other writers of the Old Testament.
It has been well termed “the breaking forth of the dawn
of a new revelation” (A7/ecvert). A day when all men shall
be judged according to their works, a day of personal and
individual retribution, requires as its necessary condition a
conscious existence after death, though at a time and season
appointed by God.

It must, as Delitzsch has well remarked, be admitted that
there were imperfections of knowledge which made it impos-
sible for Kohelcth to rise above a certain sense of Pessimism.
It was, indeed, “in divers portions” (πολυμερῶς) as well as
“in divers manners” (πολυτρόπως), Heb. i. 1, that God made
known the mystery of His doings to the holy men of old,
the men who spake from God (2 Pet. i. 21). And, though the

The grave termed an everlasting house. 201

revelations of the New Testament on this point far trans-
cend those of the Old, a veil is still toa great extent drawn
over the future state, which man would fain lift, but cannot.
But the Pessimism which was permitted to cloud the soul of
Koheleth was different from that taught by the miserable
school of modern atheists. Koheleth never lost sight of his
faith in a personal God, of a belief in a judgment to come,
or even ina future state of existence, dark and cheerless in
some respects though his conceptions of the latter may have
been. He exhorted his fellow-men: to live righteously,
soberly, and circumspectly. In spite of his pessimistic views
of life, he advised them cheerfully to enjoy the present, and
not be unduly anxious for the future. If he spoke of the
grave as man’s “everlasting house” (chap. xii. 5), a phrase
rendered with questionable fidelity in our Authorised Version
by his “long home” (notwithstanding Bullock’s attempt to
defend that rendering), it must not be forgotten that he also
speaks of the earth as abiding for eternity (chap, i. 4) without
the smallest intention for a moment of denying the fact of
its creation in time by God. A similar designation of the
grave was in use not only among the Egyptians and the
Assyrians, and in later times the Romans, but also among
the Jews at a period not much later than that of Koheleth
(see Tobit iii. 6), and may, therefore, have been in existence
in his days. The phrase was used by him as harmlessly as it
was by the Jews themselves, who, long after the doctrine of
the resurrection had become a definite article of their creed,
were wont to call their cemeteries by that designation.

The limited nature of man’s knowledge is nowhere more
distinctly taught by Koheleth than in chap. vii. 23. He
points out there that, after his utmost endeavours to obtain
wisdom with the view of solving the perplexing questions
connected with mankind, their actions, and their relation to
God, he found all such knowledge to be far beyond mortal

202 Koheleth on the Wicked Woman.

ken. “For that which is,” that which exists, or “the world
of things in its essence and with its causes” (Deditssch) “is
far off,” far removed from the sight of man, “and it is deep,
deep, who can discover it ?” (chap. vii..23.)

While busied with searching after wisdom, Koheleth learned
more than one practical lesson of utility as to the actions of
the sons of men, In his endeavours to sift things to the
bottom he learned to comprehend that wickedness was folly,
that foolishness was madness (chap. vii. 25); that men who
lived in the pursuit of folly were “beside themselves,” and
were mad. One great source of madness and folly to the
sons of men he thus introduces: “And I found more bitter
than death the woman who is like snares [hunting nets], and
like nets is her heart, her hands (the voluptuous arms with
which she seizes her prey) are like fetters, he who is good
before God will be saved from her.”

The expressions used by Koheleth in this passage show
that he did not intend to condemn promiscuously the whole
female sex. The language accords substantially with the
description given in the Book of Proverbs of the strange
and wicked woman, who is a snare to the “simple” and
“foolish” among men, and who ultimately “descends with
her house (all that appertains to her) to death, and her paths
(the tracks of her chariot-wheels) are towards the shades”
(Prov. ii. 18). 1

The verses that follow, indeed, show that Koheleth had
a low opinion of the women of his day in general. Nor
need the expression of this opinion cause any astonish-
ment. Degraded as women have ever been more or less in
the Eastern world, they were, perhaps, peculiarly so at the
time of the Persian rule. Shut up for the most part in strict
seclusion, isolated from general society, and yet liable to be

1 Prov. v. 3 ff. ; vi. 24 ff. ; vii. 6 ff. compare especially verse 23, also xali. T4 5
xxii, 27, 28.

Koheleth on female character. 203

ordered in violation of their feelings of propriety to display
themselves in public to men heated with wine (Esther 1. 10,
11); at times tyrannised over in private, and crushed in heart
and feeling ; often treated as the mere toys and playthings
of men—no wonder that women should have been deficient
in virtue and goodness. The Book of Esther gives a terrible
picture of the state of the female world, and shows us also
that the evil example of those in high position had a perni-
cious effect upon the morals of the Jewish people, although
Jewish women were not subjected to all the disabilities under
which the Persians suffered. Under such circumstances it
is not to be wondered at, that Koheleth, after having depicted
the danger arising from the thoroughly licentious woman,
should proceed to express himself more generally: “See!
this have I found, saith Koheleth, adding one to one (one
case to another) to find out the account (or, reckoning), what
still (on and on, up to the present) my soul hath sought, and I
have not found; one man out of a thousand I have found, but
a woman among all those I have not found” (chap. vii. 27, 28),
Among a thousand men who came under his observation,
Koheleth discovered only one to come up to the ideal of
what a man ought to be; while among an equal number of
women he did not find one who attained to his ideal of the
proper perfection of female character.,,

The expression “one of a thousand” is borrowed, like
sundry other phrases in the Book of Koheleth, from the Book
of Job, where it occurs twice (Job ix. 3; xxxiii. 23). It is
scarcely necessary to observe that it is not used in either of
the passages in that book, or in that in the Book of Koheleth,
in reference to the Messiah. The phrase recurs in the
Book of Ben Sira (Ecclesiasticus), chap. vi. 6, “ Let many per-
sons be friendly with thee, but let thy counsellors be one of a
thousand,” or, as the aphorism is worded in the Hebrew
fragment, “ Many will greet thee; reveal thy secret only to

204 Proverbs relating to women.

one of a thousand.”! There is, therefore, no necessity to
suppose that the author makes any reference to the number
of women in Solomon's harem (1 Kings xi. 3), though it is
quite possible that, writing as he did from the standpoint of
Solomon, that fact was present to his mind.

Koheleth’s opinion of mankind in general is by no means
flattering. There is abundant proof afforded in his book that
he regarded man as “very far gone from original righteous-
ness,” and “of his own nature inclined to evil.” In the
statement that follows the passage just quoted, the writer
endorses the main points of the story told in the Book of
Genesis about man’s fall and his present sinful condition.
For he observes: “Only this, see! I have found, that God
made man (the whole human race, including both male and
female) upright, but they (men in general) have sought out
many calculations,” devices, or inventions, whereby to gratify
their inclinations towards that which is.evil (chap. vii. 29).

If such was his opinion of the human race in general, it
is not surprising that he expresses himself in even less com-
plimentary terms when he speaks specially of women. In
almost every country proverbs are in current use in which
women are alluded to more or less contemptuously. Men in
every age have been wont thus to vent their spleen on the
other sex. The remark of the lion in the fable must however
be borne in mind: “If there were sculptors on our side you
would have seen more men conquered by lions than lions by
men.”? There are, however, it must not be forgotten, among
most nations maxims in existence which speak of women
in terms of praise. In proverbs all facts are expressed in

1See Dukes, Rabbinische Blumentlese, p. 81. This passage of Ben Sira is
several times quoted in the Talmud, Sanhedrin 100 ὁ, Jebamoth 63 4, etc. 5 in
the former place the words of Micah vii. § are added, ‘‘ keep the doors of thy
mouth from her that lieth in thy bosom.” See on Ben Sira, chap. ii.

2 fabule Aisopie coll, ex recogn. Halmii, No. 634. The fable as usually
quoted in England speaks of painters, not of sculptors.

Principle on which proverbs are framed. 205

general terms, and no notice is taken of exceptions, however
numerous they may be. Such exceptions, however, in their
turn are formed into aphorisms of a different type. Instances
of this usage occur frequently in the Book of Proverbs, where
unfavourable judgments expressed in general terms in one
place are practically modified in another by the admission of
sentiments of an opposite nature. The intelligent reader is
in all such cases left to decide for himself as to the cases in
which the one or the other saying is really applicable. Some-
times in the Book of Proverbs the two apparently opposite
aphorisms occur side by side, e.g. “ Answer not a fool accord-
ing to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him, Answer a
fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit.”
Prov. XXvi. 4, 5.

There are many Rabbinical proverbs which speak severely
of the female sex, such as, “It is better to follow a lion than
a woman.” “IIe who follows the counsel of his wife falls into
hell.” “Tf an ass can go up a ladder, then knowledge may be
found among women.”! But, side by side with proverbs of
this kind, many sayings of the very opposite character can be
adduced, such as, “ Honour your wives that you may become
rich.” “Is thy wife of small staturé, bend down to her, and
” Ze. do nothing without her opinion.” “God
hath given to the woman more intelligence than to the man.”
“He who is without a wife is without luck (Gen. ii. 18),
without help (2d), without joy (Deut. xiv. 26), without a
blessing (Ezek. xliv. 30), without atonement (Lev. xvi. 6),
without peace (1 Sam. xxv. 26), and without life (Koh. ix.
9). ὃ

1 See Buxtorf’s Morilegium Heb. p. 122. 08 nein ON xy alsa lal
ἐν ἘΠῚ ND) nw Similarly in p. 210, D3M32 Sata IMvg NyYA qeino Ὁ
So also in p. 217. O%922 NYT N¥OM Oda WONT APY dv.

2 Dukes, Raddinische Blumenlese, p. 124. Compare also the essay of J. Stern,

Die Frau im Talmud, Ziixich, 1879.
3 So says the Midrash Rabba, Gen. ii, 18. Par. 18. WON SWOT] "D9 DWAR’

whisper to her,

206 Koheleth no hater of women.

Hence a single aphorism is by no means sufficient to show
that Koheleth was a hater of the female sex. On the con-
trary, there is sufficient evidence in his book to prove that he
adhered firmly on this point to the teaching of the Mosaic
law, which sets forth plainly that woman was designed to be
a “help meet” for man.! Despite the corruption of the
period at which he wrote, he plainly recognised the truth that
there were even then in existence women worthy of a man’s
honour and love. Thus, in urging the duty of making a
cheerful use of present mercies granted from the hand of
God, the writer says: “Enjoy life with a wife whom thou
lovest all the days of the life of thy vanity, which He (God)
hath given to thee under the sun” (chap. ix. 9).

Koheleth has, moreover, given a description (chap. iv.) of
the aimless troubles and vexations of the single man, and he
alludes to the miserly habits of life which such a one is
apt to contract. His remarks on this point prove, though
no direct mention of woman is made in the passage, that
the writer had a full perception of the advantages of married
life. For he observes that the man “who is one without
a second, without son or brother,” as he contemplates his
severe labour and endles§ striving after riches, may well ask

WANT ΠῸ ἼΠῚ" WII AT IN. Soalsoin Par, 17. « ΠῸΝ yd pay b> apy san
ean xda mes ada -ΠΟῚΣ nda onnee ada cary ΝΟΣ caw sda any
row ano sda masa ib ΠΟ Ν oy ΝΟΣ ΟὐἼδὸ osname aw xd
syd) yn 782) ΠΤ sp) saps Na Nay ANS ΠΠΌΦῚ Cy Oa)
bro nwa por 7 oyna Sx ana ned cp Sspiny - ΠῚ eda ana
m corse qnvay ody ΠΠΝῚ (n'a ἘΞ Seine say «Οὐδ eda aX x
pen men (Ὁ ΠΌΠΡ) wos «ΡΠ eda ἮΝ ox 959 ota 200 penn
NAM UN TN OY

1 The Midrash says 174313 w5 ONT TTY ΠΟΤ ON “when aman is good his wife

is a help to him, but if not she corresponds to him,” or perhaps better, ‘‘she is an
opposition to him,” 7.6. stands in his way and contends with him, The clause
is explained by the commentator, 17299 ΠῚ) 8) oN yd 1b ANN ADT ON
Wiinsche translates the second clause ‘‘she is to him like a thorn,” and he notes
«97993 like 19223 as a thorn.”

Low views of women held by Pessimuists. 207

himself the question, “ For whom am I toiling and depriving
my soul of good ?” (chap. iv. 8.)

From this brief review of Koheleth’s sentiments concern-
ing woman (so far as they can be gathered from the scanty
allusions in his book to the subject), we turn to notice the
opinions on this point propounded by the chief writers of
the Pessimist school. These philosophers have no sym-
pathy whatever with the views so energetically propounded
and urged in many quarters at the present day respecting
so-called “ women’s rights.” On the contrary they are dis-
posed to look upon woman at the best as only the “ moral
parasite of man.”! If the advocates of “ women’s rights”
have gone too far in one direction, the defenders of the
novel school of thought have on the other hand propounded
views which lead directly towards the degradation of the
female sex and the demoralization of humanity.

Schopenhauer has a low opinion of women both intellec-
tually and morally. Women, from a deficiency in their
powers of reasoning and reflection, are, according to him,
predisposed to cunning. E. von Hartmann remarks that “it
is quite natural for the female sex to be more inclined to
lying and cunning than the male, inasmuch as it is the
weak sex, and cunning is the natural weapon of the weak.
Moreover, women in their daily occupations have more to
do with women than men have, and, consequently, more fre-
quently have to carry on war with lying and cunning, which
Hence,
according to Schopenhauer, women as naturally make use
of deceit and lying in fighting their battles, as a lion does
of its teeth and claws, or a bull of its horns. The sex is
in his opinion so disposed to lying that it is impossible to
find a really truthful and ingenuous woman. He regards

no

of itself induces them to use similar weapons.

1 E. von Hartmann, Phenomenologie des sittlichen Bewusstseins, p. 526.
2 Tbid., p. 348. :

208 Schopenhauer and v. Hartmann on women.

the character of women in general as a compound of false-
hood, faithlessness, treachery and ingratitude, and asserts
that women are more inclined to commit perjury than men.

It is unquestionable that a certain amount of evidence may
be adduced in support of all these charges against the female
sex. But it must not be forgotten that such charges may
be retorted, and men may with equal justice be accused of
similar baseness. The depravity of the entire human race
is a doctrine which no believer in the Divine revelation will
for a moment seek to call in question. But the railing of
sex against sex, of men against women, or of women against
men, is altogether unphilosophical. All such assertions,
whether made on one side or the other, are utterly incapable
of real proof. And, if it could be clearly shown that women
are more depraved than men, or, as von Hartmann maintains,
that the notions of morality held by women are lower than
those of the other sex, it would by no means follow that
this was a natural result of the physical constitution of
woman, seeing that other reasons might be assigned for such
a state of things. Notwithstanding, therefore, the arguments
by which Schopenhauer and von Hartmann have sought to
uphold their opinion, we regard all such representations as
gross caricatures.

Schopenhauer’s description of women’s intellectual powers
is equally unflattering. He would thoroughly endorse the
Turkish proverb: “ Long hair, little brains.” Women have
no real and true sense or susceptibility for music, poetry, or
the plastic arts. They often indeed pretend to have such
tastes, but the pretence is only made for the purpose of
coquetry. A portion of this description of women has been
borrowed by Schopenhauer from Rousseau. Schopenhauer
complains especially of the way in which women kcep on
talking to one another in the theatres, and suggests that
the Apostolic direction, “let the women keep silence in the

Deficiency of moral rectitude in women. 209

churches” (1 Cor. xiv. 34), in order to. be rendered suitable
to the present day, ought to be altered into “let a woman keep
silence in the theatre.” He denies that women have ever
produced anything great or original in the fine arts. There
may, he cautiously admits, possibly be a few exceptions to
this general rule; but, as a class, women are “the most
thorough- going and incurable Philistines.”

Nor is von Hartmann, albeit that he has twice entered into
the bonds of matrimony, a whit more complimentary to the
female sex. He, as well as Schopenhauer, maintains that
women are grossly wanting in the sense of rectitude and
righteousness; that, out of love for a particular person, they
will readily act with the grossest injustice to a competitor ;
that they are naturally inclined to commit acts of dishonesty,
and are in many cases only restrained by the fear of de-
tection ; that they have an instinctive leaning towards lying
and falsification, and cling thereto the more readily as they
have often no idea of the criminal character of the alteration
of a word or a date. In proof of this he adduces the fact
that one-fourth of the “ service-books” of the female servants
in Berlin contain gross falsifications. Where women have
influence, nepotism prevails, and, consequently, in public life
and in the State unrighteousness extends exactly so far as
the influence of the female sex reaches. Nor is there, in
his opinion, much hope of a gradual improvement of the
female character in the course of generations, because
mothers usually have the management of the education of
their daughters entirely in their own hands, and daughters
cannot in general be removed away from their mothers’
influence without still greater disadvantages. “Their de-
ficiency in a proper moral firmness, their weakness in moral
reason, and, above all, their want of the sense of recti-
tude” form the most powerful arguments “against every
female-emancipation swindle, and especially against the

Ῥ

210 7. Hartmann opposed to higher female education.

female sex being allowed actively to participate in political
lifer"

Most sensible persons will, indeed, agree with von
Hartmann in advising that women should be kept as far
as possible from all contact with the rough battle of life ;
and many justly maintain that the education of women,
even of the highest kind, ought to be such as is adapted
to the special requirements and peculiar position of their
sex. If, however, the advocates of the higher education
of women have been injudicious in the claims they have
often put forward, it is not a little remarkable that those
European apostles of a semi-Oriental philosophy, who de-
preciate the female sex for its want of intelligence and
comprehension, should so strongly urge that particular care
ought to be taken not to make women too intelligent.
These modern preachers of “the rights of man” express as
strong opinions against “the higher education of women” as
the most bigoted ultramontane priests might be expected to
give utterance to, through fear of their craft being in danger,
inasmuch as a higher education might weaken their hold
over the female sex. This advice savours somewhat of a
sort of male “trades-unionism,’ which, for its own selfish
purposes, seeks to emblazon upon its banner the old Jewish
proverb, “No other wisdom becomes a woman than the
knowledge of the spindle.”* We do not forget that von
Hartmann recommends the enlargement of women’s edu-
cation in another direction, which motives of propriety forbid
us, here to particularize.*

According to Schopenhauer, the position which women
occupy in the East is in many respects more befitting the
sex than that which is conceded to women in Europe and

1 Ἐς, von Hartmann’s Phenomenologie des οὐδέ], Bewusstseins, p. 520 ff.
* Dukes’ Rabbinische Blumentlese, p. 100.
3 FE. von Hartmann’s Phenomenologie des stttl. Bewusstseins, p. 697 ff.

v. Hartmann on the use of fentale society. 211

America. The deference paid to the fair sex in the West
is, in his opinion, altogether unnatural. Woman ought not to
be the object of man’s respect and veneration ; nor ought she
to be permitted to assume the position universally granted
to her in civilized countries. The real European lady was a
special object of Schopenhauer’s abhorrence ; and he was wont
to maintain, strangely enough, that one result of the honour
and respect paid to ladies of the higher ranks in Europe is
that the women of the lower classes there are more unhappy
than those in the East. No arguments, however, have been
adduced by him in support of this extraordinary statement.!
It must not, however, be supposed that all the writers
of the Pessimist school endorse these extravagancies of their
master. The asceticism recommended by Schopenhauer has
not met with the approval of von Hartmann. Low as is his
‘estimate of female virtue and intellect, the latter philosopher
strongly maintains that proper female society is more
beneficial to young men than intercourse with persons of
their own sex, and that such society is of essential impor-
tance for men inclined to philosophical studies. The loss of
male society can, in his opinion, be compensated for by the
study of books, that of women never. The philosopher who
dispenses with female society is like a man who seeks to
obtain an acquaintance with real life only by reading books.?
The ideas of von Hartmann on this point are in accordance
with the Sanskrit proverb which says, “women are instructed
by. Nature, the learning of men is taught by books,” or again,
“ Nature is woman’s teacher, and she learns more sense than
man, the pedant, gleans from books.” Venetianer justly

| Schopenhauer, Parerga und Paralipomena, Band 2, cap. xxiv. ‘* Ueber die
Weiber.” Sammtliche Werke, 6ter Band, p. 649 ff.

? KE. von Hartmann, Die Philosophie des Unbewussten, 3te Aufl. Berlin: 1871,
P- 370.

8 Eastern Proverbs and Emblems illustrating Old Truths, by Rev. J. Long,
Member of the Bengal Asiatic Society, F.R.G.S. London: Triibner & Co. 1881.

212 Polygamy and Monoganry.

considers Schopenhauer’s hatred of women philosophically
absurd, inasmuch as at least one-half of the human race
consists of women. He asks, “Is the love of a mother, the
devotion of a sister, the fidelity of a wife, worthy of being
despiscd as only common selfishness, and gratitude towards
him who feeds them? Schopenhauer has not indeed omitted
to instance the fact, that a mother’s love may go so far as
to sacrifice her own life, as a proof of the strength of the
animal instinct in humanity!” !

Such is the manner in which the new Atheistic philo-
sophy seeks to lower the estimation of the female sex. Such
lucubrations might be despised, if they had not an important
practical bearing. But, in matters of morality, “facilis de-
scensus Averno.”

We have already noticed the fact (p. 170) that Schopen-
hauer and von Hartmann maintain that the natural instinct.
of men is in favour of polygamy, while the feeling of women
is in favour of monogamy. Both writers bear testimony to
the present degraded state of men in general, notwithstanding
the ameliorating influences of modern civilization, They
assert as an undeniable fact that by far the larger majority of
men in the present day are, at least for:a season, virtual poly-
gamists. Bad as unregenerate human nature is, even in
professedly Christian lands, we cannot but hope that sucha
statement is to a large extent an exaggeration. But, if the
principles of Pessimism, and of Atheism in general, should
continue to spread (and such principles are spreading in an
alarming degree), a largely increased crop of immorality must
be the result. Schopenhauer, with that boldness and freedom
of speech on all subjects which is so remarkably character-
istic of his writings, is not ashamed to praise the Mormons,

1 Venetianer, Schopenhauer als Scholastiker, p. 272. Wenetianer remarks that
Schopenhauer’s chapter upon women might usefully be read aloud for pastime
and amusement on the occasion of a feast, or on the evening of Purim.

Degradation of women caused by atheism. 213

because they have made converts by throwing off what he
terms the unnatural bondage of monogamy. He maintains
that the practice of polygamy, though opposed to the esprit
de corps of women in civilized lands and against the interests
of individual women, is on the whole a benefit to the female
sex. It must not be forgotten that his writings, as well as
those of von Hartmann, are shortly to appear in an English
translation.

It need not create any surprise that, boldly avowing such
detestable sentiments, Schopenhauer should maintain that
women ought to possess no real property, that at most they
should, when unmarried, be permitted to enjoy an income for
life, that they should be always placed under guardians, and
in no case be permitted to act as sole guardians of their own
children. He quotes the opinion of Aristotle (Politic., ii. 9),
who maintained that the liberty granted to women in Sparta,
‘and the large dowries and inheritances of which they came
into possession, were among the causes which led to the
downfall of that state. Schopenhauer himself maintains,
and history on this point supports his opinion, that the
French Revolution was brought about by the corruption
engendered by female influence. Woman, concludes Scho-
penhauer, is by nature intended to obey, and she is wont to
place herself under some master by whom she permits herself
to be ruled and directed ; “if she is young, it isa lover; if
she is old, a confessor.”

It is important, though melancholy, to note the degrada-
tion of male and female which, sooner or later, is ever the
outcome of atheism. St. Paul has vividly described the state
of the heathen world who “knowing God, glorified Him
not as God” (Romans i. 21 ff.), and his description may be
regarded (excepizs excipiendis) almost as a prophecy of the
results that always follow in the wake of atheism and false
philosophy.

514 TVoman a blessing to man.

“ Amongst the heathen,” writes the great German reformer,

“there was a saying—zria mala, mala. pessima, ignis, agua,

Jemina—that is, there can be nothing worse than what these
three can do, to wit, fire, water, and woman. But these and
many like sayings against the female sex have been vomited
forth by the devil out of pure hatred and venom towards
God and His work, meaning in this way to disgust every
man with the married state and with God’s word.” But, as
Samson is said to have obtained honey in the carcase of
the lion, we may deduce from this saying of the ancients
something higher and nobler. How could the world, ruined
as it is by sin, exist at all without fire to warm us, water
to refresh us, and woman to comfort us. A French writer,
Jouy, quoted by Schopenhauer, well says: “ Without women
the beginning of our life would be deprived of its succour,
the middle of our life of pleasure, and its end of consola-
tion.” The student of the Holy Scriptures need not be-
reminded of the numerous examples of noble women men-
tioned in Old Testament Writ, or of the devoted heroines
of New Testament days. Their names stand forth con-
spicuously, side by side with those of men, in the muster-
roll of the “noble army of martyrs,” concerning which our
Christian poet has sung :—
ΚΑ noble army, men and boys,.
The matron and the maid,
Around the Saviour’s throne rejoice,
In robes of light arrayed ;
They climbed the steep ascent of heaven,
Through peril, toil, and pain ;
O God ! to us may grace be:given,
To follow in their train !”

CHAPTER VIII.

THE CLOSING SECTION OF THE BOOK OF KOHELETH.
—THE DAYS OF LIFE AND THE DAYS OF DEATH.

21g

CHAPTER VIII.

The closing section of Koheleth, 217—Its poetic character, 217—Koheleth on the
duty of submission to kings, 218—Woe to the land whose king is a child, 219—
The importance of noble birth in a ruler, 220—The ruin often caused by the
revelry of king and nobles, 221—Koheleth’s book no encouragement to rebel-
lion, 222—‘* Curse not the king,”’ 222—Words uttered in secret, 223—Casting
bread on the waters, 223—Hitzig’s explanation untenable, 224—Koheleth sup-
posed to recommend merchants to engage in foreign enterprises, 224 Objection
to this interpretation, 226—The passage in Koh xi. I, 2 an exhortation to bene-
ficence, 226—Anecdote from the Kabus, 227—Thin cakes of bread, 227—Bene-
ficence should be generous and not stinted, 228—Advantages of beneficence from
a.worldly point of view, 228—The uniformity of the laws of nature, 229—False
interpretation of Koh. xi. 3 by Bridges, 229—Opportunities not to be neglected,
230—The way of the wind and the secrets of embryology, 231—Constant occu-
pation a blessing, 231—The sweetness of life, 232—The darkness of the grave,
233—Cheerfulness commended in youth, 234—The advice not ironical, 234—
The direction of the Law and the advice of Koheleth, 234—The judgment of the
future, 235—The condemnation of anger and peevishness, 237—The evil of the
flesh, 238—Cheerfulness of mind and early piety, 238—The importance of piety,
238—The days of evil, or man’s passage to the tomb, 239—Death like a winged
Pegasus, 240—Koheleth's description of ‘‘the evil days,” 240—The absence of
pleasure, 240—The Hebrew mode of speaking of the seasons, 242—The alle-
gorical explanation of the light of the sun, etc., 242—The watchers of the
house, 243—The house the body of man, 244—The grinding maids ceasing from
work, 244—-The organs of sight, 244—The doors shut to the street, 245—The
sound of the mill ceasing, 246—The rising up at the voice of a bird, 247—The
weak voice of old age, 248—The storm theory of the passage, 249—The
daughters of song, 250—The fears on the way, 251—Hahn’s exposition of the
passage, 252—The night of death and the terrors of the grave, 253—The pro-
phetical exposition of the passage given in the Midrash, 255—The almond-tree
in blossom, 257—Plumptre on ‘the tree of wakefulness,” 259—The various
explanations of the locust, 260—Objections adduced, 261—Plumptre’s strange
exposition, 261—The anecdote of the Talmud, 262—The song of the grass-
hopper, 262—The reference to the caperberry, 263—Its use, 263—The objec-
tionable views of Hitzig, 263—The mourners going about, 265 —The silver cord,
266—The golden bowl, 266—The shivering of the pitcher, 268—The end of
man and the beast, 268—The new interpretation, 269—The evil days of man,
269—The Palestinian winter, 270—‘‘ The days of the old woman,” 271—The
legends on which the phrase is based, 271—The division into seven stanzas, 272
—The days of advance to the grave, 272—The slave and the master, 272—The
maid and her mistress, 272—The advent of spring, 273—The two pictures,
death and life, 273—Free translation of the whole passage, 274.

216

CHAPTER VIII.

THE CLOSING SECTION OF THE BOOK OF KOHELETH.—THE
DAYS OF LIFE AND THE DAYS OF DEATH.

THE various sections of the Book of Koheleth are not
always distinctly marked off from one another, and it is a
matter of considerable uncertainty at what precise point the
last section of the book really commences. Chapter xii.
cannot be regarded as forming in itself a complete section,
for it is clearly connected with the two concluding verses
of chap. xi. And even these verses are in their turn con-
nected, though not so intimately, with those preceding them.
Delitzsch considers the final section to begin at chap. x. 16.
As the question is not of any great importance, we may
assume the latter opinion to be correct, and regard that as
the commencement of the closing portion of the book.

No survey of the Book of Koheleth in relation to modern
criticism would have any claim to be regarded as complete
even as an introduction to the study of the work itself, if it
passed over in silence the conflicting interpretations given of
the 12th chapter. We may indeed fairly refer the student
who wishes to learn our opinion on other passages to the
commentary appended to this work, but it is necessary here to
attempt to give a general outline of the contents of the closing
chapter. This chapter is so intimately connected with the
passage that precedes it, as to render it hopeless for a critic
to maintain with any plausibility that it is the work of an-
other writer. And yet it exhibits powers of poetical expres-
sion so remarkable, when compared with the heavy diction

217

218 Avheleth on the duty of obedience to kings.

of the other parts of the book, as ought to make critics
cautious in asserting (as is often done too rashly) the incapa-
city of a writer, whose general style on some subjects may
be dull and prosaic, to rise at other times to the level of
poetry.

If, as has been maintained in the preceding chapters, the
Book of Koheleth is to be regarded as a production of the
later portion of the Persian era, it is worthy of special notice
that, just as the Apostle Paul in the days of Nero exhorted
Christians to exhibit a ready obedience to the temporal
rulers of the Roman Empire (Rom. xiii. 1-7), so Koheleth, at
the very time when the Persian rule must have been felt most
galling, advised his readers to submit to that authority under
which Providence had placed them.

The views of Koheleth as to the wisdom and duty of sub-
mission to the king are so decided, that Hitzig, believing
that such opinions cannot be reconciled with the severe re-
marks on unworthy princes and nobles contained in chap.
x. 16, 17, ventures to assert that these strictures ought to
be regarded as part of the speech of the fool spoken of in
the preceding verse.

But Hitzig’s judgment is here seriously at fault. Koheleth
may well maintain on the one hand that kings and those
in authority ought to be respected and obeyed, and yet con-
demn in scathing terms the effeminacy and immorality often
exhibited by princes, and the drunkenness and debauchery
too generally practised by the nobles at the Persian courts,
and well known to all the subjects of the empire. The
prophets of the Old Testament, though ever ready to up-
hold the lawful authority of princes, were, as Delitzsch ob-
serves, no less ready to rebuke with bold frankness the
impiety and oppression often shown by those in high places.
Thus, Elijah boldly rebuked Ahab; Isaiah was not behind-
hand in reproving Ahaz; and the solemn denunciations of

Koheleth’s condemnation of a child-king. 219

Jeremiah against the unrighteous acts of Jehoiakim, Jehoi-
achin, and Zedekiah are sufficient of themselves to prove,
that respect for the office and person of a monarch is not
inconsistent with a manly condemnation of the sins of men
placed in the loftiest earthly position.

The expression of Koheleth, “ Woe to thee, O land, whose
king is a child” (chap. x. 16), is partly.an echo of the saying
of Isaiah (iii, 12), “as for my people their ruler (1W93) is a
wilful child, and women rule over him (ze. the child).” In
place, however, of referring, as Isaiah does, to the misery of
a land whose prince is under the government of women,
Koheleth directs attention to the misfortune of a country
whose ruler spends his time in the society of revellers.
“Woe to thee, O land, whose king is a child, and whose
princes eat in the morning,” that is, who “rise early in the
morning that they may follow strong drink, and continue
till night, till wine inflame them” (Isaiah v. 11).

It is no wonder that so striking an aphorism as that of
Koheleth has often been referred to at various epochs of
history. Delitzsch notes that Salomon, Bishop of Constance,
alluded to it as fulfilled in the time of Louis III., surnamed
the Child, the last of the Carlovingian emperors of Germany.
Catharine de Medici made frequent mention of it when she
spoke of the state of France in the early portion of the reign
of Charles [X.1 There is a Rabbinical proverb formed by
the combination of the thought in the aphorism of Koheleth
with the saying of Isaiah before quoted, “Woe to (or, unhappy
is) the generation, whose leader (N27) is a woman;” and
its spirit is breathed in another Jewish proverb, “ Woe to the
generation which has lost its leader (13°72), woe to the ship
which has lost her stecrsman.” 5 ᾿

1 See Henry White’s Aassacre of St. Bartholomew. London: John Murray,

p. 151.
See Dukes’ Radbinische Blumentese, pp. 120, 89.

220 The importance of noble birth in a king.

The truth of the aphorism was strikingly exemplified in
the early part of the reign of Rehoboam the son of Solomon.
But this fact is not, as some have imagined, an argument in
favour of the Solomonic authorship of the book, but rather
the reverse. The writer was, as has been already noticed,
well acquainted with all the incidents of the reign of
Solomon and of his successor.

The proverb which immediately follows, “ Happy art
thou, O land, whose king is a son of nobles” (chap. x. 17),
is strongly suggestive of the later period of Jewish history.
Koheleth, in another place (chap. x. 7), expresses his disgust
at beholding slaves unduly exalted, while nobles were forced
to occupy humble positions. He pronounces that land for-
tunate, whose ruler is born and trained up in the higher
ranks of society, and is not a mere upstart slave or low-born
eunuch, elevated like Bagoas by atrocious crimes to lofty
estate| That slaves should occupy the place of nobles, and
nobles should be degraded from the: position due to their
rank, was in his eyes a reversal of the proper order of things.
Men born to the purple have not, indeed, always acquitted
themselves with honour; but, as a general rule, men are best
fitted to be rulers of men who by early education and train-
ing have been prepared for such office and authority. The
phrase made use of by Koheleth might, indeed, be inter-
preted metaphorically to indicate men of noble character.
But the literal sense is well suited to the passage. For though
nobility of blood has in no age been ‘any certain guarantee
of nobleness of action, or of the possession of the wisdom
desirable for one invested with royal authority, the history

1 Bagoas was raised for his valuable services to.the most eminent position in
the state by Artaxerxes Ochus. Ile afterwards murdered that monarch (B.c. 338)
and all his sons save Arses, whom he placed on the throne of Persia, but murdered
also shortly after. He was put to death himself by Darius Codomannus—whom he
had placed upon the throne in room of Arses—shortly after the accession of that
monarch,

The revelry of kings and nobles. δ

of the Persian empire abounds with illustrations of the truth
that persons raised from a state of slavery to the place of
authority have generally proved the most terrible oppressors
of their fellow-men. It need not cause any surprise that,
as is usual in such aphoristic maxims (see p. 205), the writer
should have spoken in general terms of the advantage to a
country of its ruler being of noble blood, and should have
passed over without notice the numerous exceptions pre-
sented in history.

Koheleth also does not forget to remark on the evil con-
sequences which are the result of a monarch and his nobles
abandoning themselves to sensuality and revelry. Men
ought to eat and drink in order to refresh themselves for
the higher work they may have to perform. When the
king and nobles, through indolence or debauchery, neglect
their proper duties, the whole fabric of the empire soon falls
into a ruinous condition ; just as the timberwork of a house,
the repairs of which have been neglected, rapidly decays, and
its roof becomes leaky and useless (ch. x. 18).

Under such pictures the writer portrays the danger which
arises from those apparently harmless feasts, spread for pur-
poses of pleasure, which frequently prove nets to catch and
destroy the simple. In the round of such festivities rulers
and men of high position have often drowned themselves
and their country in destruction and perdition. The wine-
bowl gladdens for a season the life of such gay revellers,
and they yield themselves to all the blinding joys of sen-
suality (ch. x. 19). Men who are rich are able for a season to
make provision for the flesh to fulfil the lusts thereof (Rom.
xiii. 14), by the means of money which renders it possible for
them to obtain that which they lust after ; for little is denied
to those wealthy transgressors who can pay ied the
slaves of their passions.

In days when a state is plainly falling to pieces by

222 The duty of submission to authority.

reason of the dissolute conduct of its prince, the thought
must needs arise in many a heart whether it be not advisable
to seek to hurl the unworthy monarch from his throne. But
Koheleth did not intend his work to be an encouragement to
rebellion. While, therefore, he censures the wretched king
and nobles, and drops a lament over the land cursed with
such a plague, he calls to mind the truth alluded to in several
parts of his book, namely, that God has a proper time and
season at which He will punish men for their transgression
(ch. iii. 17). The individual sufferer must wait for that season,
and make the best use he can of the trial which the “ King
of nations”! (Rev. xv. 3,) hath given to men to exercise them
therewith. Like St. Paul in a later day—whose teaching
seems founded on Koh. viii. 2, though the Apostle nowhere
quotes the book—Koheleth, at a much earlier period, urged
asa matter of conscience the duty of submission to lawfully
constituted authority. It would have been simple madness
had Jewish believers, through indignation at the sensuality
or immorality of any of the Persian monarchs, burst out into
rebellion against their rule. The weapons with which they were
armed were far nobler than merely carnal ones; the latter
would have been unsheathed in vain; their success by means
of the former would ultimately have been certain.?

Hence it was that Koheleth, under the guidance of a
higher than human inspiration, warned his readers not even
in their inner consciousness to curse the king, or in their
bed-chambers to execrate the rich man, however unworthily
either might act. The dictum “vengeance belongeth unto

1 The reading, ‘‘king of saints,” followed by our A.V., is unsupported by
Greek MSS., and was smuggled into the Greek text of the New Test. from the
Vulgate by Erasmus. See Delitzsch’s Handschriftliche Funde, istes Heft, p. 40.
Delitzsch has consequently, in his Hebrew New Test., adopted the reading
ΝΠ abn. The Revised English Version of the N. T. follows in its text the
reading ὁ βασιλεὺς τῶν αἰώνων, king of ages, which is that adopted by Westcott
and Hort in their edition of the Greek Testament (Cambridge, 1881).

2 See remarks in my Bamplon Lectures on Zechariah, pp. 240, 247, 252.

Danger of words uttered in secret. 208

me: I will recompense, saith the Lord,” which is so strikingly
commented on by St. Paul (Rom xii. 19 ff.), is one of the
great sayings of the Law, and necessary to be obeyed for
the sake of conscience towards God, and also for the sake of
one’s own personal safety in dangerous days. Men sometimes
fancy they are alone when they are not. Words uttered in
secret are often proclaimed on the housetops. The curse
denounced against the monarch may be carried by the fowls
of heaven screaming in the open air, and the winged crea-
tures may publish the secret to the outer world! ‘There are
ears on the road and ears in the wall” open to listen to
imprudent expressions ; and, though the wise man should not
take heed to every bitter word that may be spoken against
himself in secret (if he accidentally overhears such lan-
guage), but should act as if he heard it not (Koh. vii. 21,
22), he need not expect an immoral tyrant to exhibit such
magnanimity.

‘There is considerable difference of opinion as to the sense
of. the opening verses of the eleventh chapter. There is no
allusion there, as was long supposed by popular commen-
tators, such as Bridges and others, to the sowing of seed
upon the waters which takes place in Egypt during the
inundation of the Nile. This interpretation, however, is as
old as Jerome, and probably older. It is scarcely possible
to explain the phrase “ over the face of the waters” as equi-
valent to “beside all waters” (Isa. xxxii. 20), though the
word translated dread is sometimes used in the sense of seed-
corn (Isa. xxviii. 28, xxx. 22, and Ps. civ. 14). But the verb

1 Compare the story told of Ibycus, who having been set upon by robbers near
Corinth called upon a flock of cranes which were flying over head to avenge his
death. Soon afterwards, when the people of Corinth were assembled in the
theatre, a number of cranes appeared hovering over the heads of the spectators,
and one of the murderers exclaimed: ‘‘ Behold the avengers of Ibycus!” This
exclamation led to the discovery of the crime. The expression ‘‘the cranes of
Ibycus” afterwards passed into a proverb. See for authorities, Smith's Dict. of
Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology. ;

224 Casting bread upon the waters.

which occurs in the passage does not mean to cas¢ or scatter
abroad seed, but to send, or send forth. It is used of the
sending forth of plagues, wild beasts, or famine upon a land,
and of the sending forth of a king by God in judgment as
a scourge against a country. It is technically used in a few
passages of the sending forth of arrows from the bow (1 Sam.
Xx. 20), or of the sending or casting forth of the fire of judg-
ment into a city (Amos i. 4 ff.) in order to consume it; but
this latter usage does not afford any help in the explanation
of the passage of Koheleth.

The verb also occurs in the sense of casting away, and
Hitzig considers it has that signification in the passage
before us. But the direction ‘cast away thy bread upon
the face of the waters” is scarcely defensible on exegetical
grounds. For the passage cannot be interpreted with Hitzig
as a recommendation to those who desire to see their hopes
fulfilled to cherish no expectation of success, and to have no
faith in their best exertions. Hitzig imagines that Koheleth
is urging on his readers the wisdom of being prepared for
adversity, and he quotes as a parallel the words of /Eneas,
“una salus victis nullam sperare salutem (Virg. AEn. ii, 354).
But the language of the passage is not certainly that of
desperation.

Hitzig’s interpretation has not found much favour among
expositors. But there are two other explanations of the pas-
sage for which much can be said. The view which Delitzsch
has taken is a modification of that formerly held by Martin
Geier, J. D. Michaelis and others—namely, that Koheleth
recommends the practice of the prudent merchant, who sends
forth his merchandise in ships, which go over the face of the
waters to distant lands, with the expectation that on their
return he will receive his own with an increase. He regards
the word dread, which is expressed in the first clause of the
verse, and is represented by the pronoun in the second, to

Supposed to refer to foreign enterprises. 225

signify in the former the means of making gain, and in the
latter “the bread of acquisition,” or that gained by trading.
The word dread cannot, indeed, be translated wealth or pro-
perty, as was maintained by some of the earlier expositors
who took this view of the passage. It might be urged that
bread is scarcely a suitable expression for the gains of the
merchant who naturally seeks to obtain a large return from
his enterprises. But Proverbs xxxi. 14 may be cited in
defence of the aphorism being so understood. For the wise
woman is there said to be “like the ships of the merchant,
she bringeth her food (προ, her bread) from far.” Delitzsch
compares Psalm cvii. 23, where mention is made of those
who go down to the sea in ships, and do business in the
great waters. The picture, according to him, is taken from
the corn-trade of a maritime city. Mendelssohn maintains
that Solomon is here urging on the Israelitish merchants of
his day the advantage to be obtained from foreign commerce,
with an under reference to the practice which he first intro-
duced into Israel, of sending ships to Ophir and Tarshish
in search of the products of distant lands.

If the first verse be so interpreted, the second must bear a
similar sense. It has, therefore, been explained by Mendels-
sohn, Preston, Delitzsch, etc., as a continuation of the advice
to those inclined to engage in foreign ventures. Koheleth
recommends a person to “divide the portion into seven, yea
eight portions, for thou knowest not what evil will occur
upon the earth.” The precept, according to Delitzsch, enjoins
a speculative prudence similar to that displayed by Jacob
on a critical occasion (Gen. xxxii. 9), and its sense is: do
not commit all your goods to one ship. The proverb thus
understood is equivalent to our maxim, “Do not put all your
eggs into one basket.” ;

The critical arguments by which ΕΠ: defends this
interpretation will be seen in our commentary. The great

Q

226 Objection to this interpretation.

objection to it is, that the phrase 20 grve a portion or a part to
a person 0 pon 1), Josh. xiv. 4; xv. 13) is used elsewhere
in a different signification, namely, as synonymous with 20
give gifts to ἵν; M2 12, 1 Sam. i. 4, τς 2 Chron; XXXL 19;
Esther ii. 9). Moreover, it may be fairly questioned whether,
if the writer had intended to refer to disaster by sea, he
would have used the phrase in the second clause, “thou
knowest not what evil shall happen on the earth.” It is
rather far-fetched to suppose that in the latter he had in his
mind the possibility of the disasters which might happen to
4 caravan on land.

Hence we are disposed rather to agree with those who
explain both verses 1 and 2 as exhortations to beneficence.
The earliest comment on the passage is that of Ben Sira, who,
in a maxim of his, extant only in Chaldee, observes “strew
(PM) thy bread upon the surface of the water and on the dry
land, and thou shalt find it in the end of days.”! It will be
observed in this earliest comment upon the verse that the
difficulty of considering the verb to refer to sowing of seed
was felt even at that time, and an attempt made to obviate
it by translating the word in a sense in which it certainly
occurs. Bishop Lowth in his work on Hedrew Poetry has
explained the phrase as equivalent to the Greek expression Zo
sow the sea. But the aphorism of Koheleth was not meant as
an exhortation to engage in labour though apparently fruitless.
Its signification is better conveyed in the Arabic proverb quot-
ed from Dicz by several commentators, “Do good, cast thy
bread into the water, at some time a recompence will be made
thee.” Delitzsch observes that the same proverb has been
naturalised in Turkish, “ Do good, throw it into the water, if
the fish does not know it, God does.” A very suitable paral-
16] is quoted by Herzfeld from Goethe's Vestostlich. Divan,

1 Dukes’ Rabhinische Blumentese, p. 73. See on this proverb of Ben Sira our
remarks on p. 46,

Anecdote from the Kadbus. 22)

“Was willst du untersuchen,

Wohin die Milde fliesst !
Ins Wasser wirf deine Kuchen:
Wer weiss, wer sie geniesst!”

A similar interpretation is found in Voltaire! Dukes gives
in his note the following story, quoted from the Kabus by
Diez (Denkwiirdigkeiten von Asien, 1 Th. p. 106 ff.), which,
whether it be a fact or a fiction, well illustrates the meaning
of the Arabic proverb.

The caliph Mutewekkil in Bagdad had an adopted son
Fettich of whom he was very fond. As the latter was bath-
ing one day, he sank under the water and disappeared. The
caliph offered a large reward to any one who should recover
the boy’s body. A bather was fortunate enough after seven
days to discover the boy alive in a cavern in a precipitous
mountain by which the river flowed. On investigation, the
caliph ascertained that the boy was kept from starving by
cakes of bread borne to him over the.surface of the water,
on which cakes was stamped the name of Mohammed
ben Hassan. The caliph, having summoned Mohammed ben
Hassan into his presence, asked him what induced him to
throw the bread into the water. Mohammed ben Hassan
replied, that he had done so every day for an whole year in
order to test the truth of the Arabic proverb already cited.
The caliph, according to the story, was so pleased with his
conduct, that he made over to him on the spot five villages
in the neighbourhood of Bagdad.

It must be borne in mind that bread in’ the East is
generally made in the form of thin cakes, which, if cast
into the water, would remain for a considerable time on

‘In his Precis de’ Eecldsiaste en vers, Voltaire paraphrases :

Repandez vos bienfaits avec rhagnificence,
Méine aux moins vertueux ne les refusez pas.

Ne yous informez pas de leur reconnoissance ;
Il est grand, il est beau de faire des ingrats.

228 Koheleth on the advantage of beneficence.

the surface and be easily carried along by the current of the
stream.

The second verse is best explained in the same way as an
exhortation to the practice of a benevolence towards others
that does not stop at any precise limits, but is willing to
exceed “the seven times” which might satisfy the mere
legalist (Matt. xviii. 21). Nothing is more opposed to the
spirit of the passage than the objection made by Preston,
who considers such an exhortation inconsistent with the large-
hearted liberality recommended in the previous verse. On
seven and eight as indicative of a large but indefinite num-
ber see Micah v. 4. Compare the expression in Job v. 19:
“He shall deliver thee from six troubles, yea, in seven there
shall no evil touch thee.”

The advantage of beneficence, even considered purely
from an utilitarian point of view, is glanced at in the close
of the verse. In times of evil and calamity the kind and
the good often escape when others find no place of refuge.
“ Peradventure for the good man some one would even dare
to die” (Rom. v. 7). Many misfortunes occur which fall upon
the most deserving as well as upon the most worthless of
mankind. Man knows not when he may need the help of
his fellow ; and it is well to act kindly and liberally in the
day of prosperity! True philanthropy is not, indeed, based
on a calculation of chances. But, though there are higher
motives to impel men to do good unto others, the lower
motives cannot be altogether left out of consideration. “St.

1 Compare our Lord’s direction to the rich tax-gatherers or publicans who,
touched by His acts of grace and words of kindness, avowed themselves His
disciples, ‘make to yourselves friends by means of the mammon of unrighteous-
ness (7,6. money often gained by and spent in unrighteousness) ; that, when it shall
fail, they may receive you into the eternal tabernacles” (Luke xvi. 9), that is,
spend your riches in doing good in this world, seek to make friends of the poor
and the maimed, the lame and the blind, by doing acts of kindness, and distribut-
ing to their necessities (Luke xiv, 12-14), that they may welcome you when you
shall entcr the mansions of the blessed.

The unrformity of the laws of nature. 229

Paul,” writes Cox, “urges us to help a brother who has fallen
before temptation (Gal. vi. 1) on the express ground that we
ourselves may need similar help some day: and ἦε was not
in the habit of appealing to mean and base motives.” Self-
love is implanted in man’s nature, and men who affect to
despise such a motive are often themselves, with all their
professed loftiness of aim, actuated by no higher objects than
those of pleasure, fame, or advancement. When a country
is visited by some great calamity, the rich and the great
are often the first to suffer. It is wise, therefore, for those
in prosperity to remember that they may themsevles taste
the bitterness of adversity.

If this be the meaning of verses 1 and 2, it will be seen
that there is a close connexion between these thoughts and
that brought under notice in verse 3, where Koheleth reminds
his readers of the uniformity of the laws of nature. The
good and bad alike are exposed to the action of these laws.
If the clouds are full of heavy showers, these showers must
discharge themselves in due course ypon the earth; and if a
tree falls in the north or the south, in the place where the
tree falls there it will lie.

The last remark proves that the uniformity of natural law
was the thought uppermost in the writer’s mind. The future
depends on Jaws beyond the control of man, and a prudent
individual ought to be prepared for all contingencies. Knobel
imagines that the first clause refers to the refreshing showers
which come from the clouds when they are full of rain, and
considers that the writer exhorts those who are rich in this
world’s good to be equally ready to communicate out of their
abundance to those who are in need. But the second clause
shows that this is not here the meaning of the writer; for it
will scarcely bear the interpretation put upon it by Knobel,
that no generous action is performed without some benefit
resulting to the doer, since the tree is always found in the

230 False interpretation of Koh. xi. 3.

place where it falls, and can be utilised for the good of the
owner. Bridges explains the passage as teaching that “ there
is good security for the return of well-principled benevo-
lence.” But he suggests at the close of his note that “the
accommodation of Solomon’s figure” in this passage brings
vividly the truth before one’s eyes that death may soon
strike and then “our state is unchangeably fixed for eter-
nity ; where the tree falleth there shall it be. Death changes,
purifies nothing.” This is a glaring example of a meaning
assigned to a text which the commentator did not feel him-
self at liberty to reject, but well knew it never was intended
to bear. Bullock is perfectly correct when he says that
“there is nothing in the text to indicate that the common
application of the image of the fallen tree to the state of
departed souls (see St. Bernard, Sermoncs de Divers?s, Ixxxv.)
was in the mind of the inspired writer.” In the interests
of evangelical truth one must protest strongly against all
such popular misinterpretations of Scripture.

The wise man, while he must not be unmindful of dangers
ahead, but prudently seek to provide against them, ought
not be too anxious about the future, There is, as Lord
Bacon observes, no greater impediment to action than an
overcautious observance of times and seasons. Such calcu-
lations often defeat their own purpose. The man who puts
off the sowing of his fields from day to day, through fear of
the wind or the rain, will at last lose his harvest. There is
no absolute certainty in human affairs.! Opportunities, as
Bacon notes, are as often made as found. A man “must
have faith and courage to run some risk; the conditions
of success cannot be reckoned on beforehand ; the future
belongs to God, the all-conditioning ” (De/itssch).

The latter is the idea presented in the next verse (verse 5).

Δ « Probability,” as Bishop Butler has well remarked in his work on Zhe
Analogy of Religion, ‘is the very guide of life.”

The secrets of the wind and enbryology. 231

“As man knows not what is the way of the wind,” the ways
and working of which are concealed from mortal knowledge,
as is also the way in which “the bones come into being in the
womb of her who is with child, even so man cannot under-
stand the work of God who maketh all.” The context shows
that it is not the “ spzrzt” which Koheleth here speaks of, as
our Auth. Version, following the Targum, has translated
the word. The wind is mentioned in the preceding verse,
and the writer speaks of it in chap. i. 6, and in viii. 8. Man
knows not the way of the wind (John iii. 8), because he has
not the control over it, and man only knows that which he
governs (Delitzsch). The secrets of the wind are as profound
as are those of embryology, the latter being always regarded
as some of the deep things of nature which cannot be
searched out to perfection. If such secrets exist in the works
of nature, the acts of the God of nature must necessarily
be inscrutable. He overrules the future as well as the past.
“The growth of the child in the workshop of the mother’s
womb is compared to the growth of the future in the bosom
of the present, out of which it will be born (Prov. xxvii. 1,
comp. Zeph. ii. 2)”—Delitesch.

Since, therefore, the future rests in the power of One who
arranges all things, but who does not act arbitrarily, and
since a finite being cannot unravel the secrets of the Infinite,
man should act faithfully, and perform energetically his ap-
pointed task. “Whatsoever thy hand findeth to do, do it
with all thy might” (chap. ix. 10). This is the thought which
reappears here. Man should sow his seed in the morning, and
continue his work till evening (Ps. civ. 23). Agriculture is
used as a synonyme for work of every kind. Man’s work
is often spoken of as a sowing of seed ; for, whether he will or
nill, he is working for the future, sowing seed of one kind or
another (Gal. vi. 7, 8). It was the curse pronounced upon
him after his fall that in the sweat of his face he should eat

232 The sweetness of the light of the sun.

bread (Gen. iii. 19). But the curse can be transformed into a
blessing. Constant occupation, without too much anxiety for
the future, is a blessing here on earth. Man knows not, in-
deed, whether his individual work shall prosper; but he knows
that, as in the natural world “seedtime and harvest” do not
cease (Gen. viii. 22), so men, as a general rule, do not labour
in vain. The harvest they reap is usually proportionate to
their exertions.

So far as we have gone in our explanation of the chapter,
an intimate connexion exists between each of the verses.
This is true also with respect to the verses on the exposition
of which we have now to enter (chap. xi. 7 ff.).

Koheleth proceeds further to speak of the pleasures of life
which lie within the grasp of men, and which they ought
thankfully to enjoy, inasmuch as they come from the hand
of God. The honest and earnest worker has a full right to
enjoy such harmless pleasures as life affords him. “This joy
of life, based upon fidelity to one’s vocation, and sanctified
by the fear of God, is the truest and highest enjoyment here
below” (Delitssch). The previous admonitions to be diligent
in earthly business are closely connected with the exhortation
to enjoy life. Though St. Paul may not have had man’s
ordinary labour in view in his remarks in Rom, xii. 11, 12,
the sequence of his thoughts in that passage is very similar
to: that of Koheleth.

The spirit which actuated the writer was the very opposite
to that of the modern Pessimist. This is shown by the
remark of Koheleth : “And sweet is the light, and good it
is for the eyes to behold the sun, for, though a man live
many years, let him rejoice in them: all, and let him re-
member the days of darkness, for they shall be many. All
that cometh is vanity.”

The light here commended as swect is the light of the
upper world, the light of life (comp. Ps. lvi. 14, A. V. verse

The darkness which envelopes the grave. 233

13; Job. xxxiii. 30), the glorious light of the sun. The
enjoyment of life is confined to no special season of human
existence, though it may be less δ one season than at
another. As long as the eyes can drink in the light of day,
it is good for them to behold the glory of the sun. Days of
evil may come; clouds may, during long hours of sorrow,
obscure the glory of the sun; but even if a man live many
days he should endeavour to rejoice in them all; and all the
more so, if a long night of darkness awaits him ultimately
at the close of his earthly career. By the days of darkness,
which Koheleth in chap. xi. 8 says “shall be many,” he does
not mean the days of sorrow in this life, or even the days of
old age. To explain the passage in such a way would be to
make it self-contradictory, for Koheleth asserts that a man
ought to rejoice all the days of his life. Nor would he be
justified in asserting that the days of darkness in every man’s
case are “many,” if days on this side of the grave are signi-
‘fied. He evidently refers to the state after death; “all that
cometh,” that is, whatever comes in the future after the life
on earth is over, is but vanity. A long, shadowy, unsub-
stantial existence was‘all that, with his limited knowledge,
Koheleth saw before man. The darkness which shrouded the
future state had not then been illumined by the light which
now shines brightly from the sepulchre of the Redeemer, from
whose door the stone was rolled away by a mighty angel
(Matt. xxviii. 2). Job similarly describes the land beyond
the grave as it appeared in his eyes, as “a land of darkness
and of the shadow of death, a land of darkness, as darkness
itself, and of the shadow of death, without any order, and
where the light is as darkness” (Job x. 21, 22).!

Inasmuch as a long dark night, a life which seemed to be
only a shadow of life, appeared to Koheleth to be the future
which awaits all men, he urges on young men the wisdom of

1 See our remarks in chap. vii. p. 197 ff.

5.94 Cheerfulness recomnended to youth.

taking all the legitimate enjoyment possible in early years,
and of plucking those flowers of pleasure which grow along-
side the path of life. Hence the section begins with the
words :

Rejoice, young man, in thy youth,

And let thy heart cheer thee in the days of thy youth,

And walk in the ways of thy heart,

And according to (lit. zz) the sight of thine eyes,
But know, that for all these God shall bring thee into the judgment.

A merry heart maketh a cheerful countenance (Prov. xv.
13); and the heart of the young man should be full of joy
in the days of youth. If he cannot enjoy himself in early
days of health and vigour, it is unlikely, should his time be
prolonged upon the earth, that he will be able to rejoice in
all the days of his mortal life, which Koheleth, in the verse
immediately preceding, affirms to be a bounden duty of man.
The life which begins in a self-created gloom will probably
be dark and gloomy up to its close. If a man does not seek
to. cultivate a cheerful spirit while young, he will be still
more morose and discontented in advancing years.

The language of Koheleth in this passage has been
often explained as ironical. But this idea does not suit
the context. His advice is meant seriously. Koheleth was
far from recommending the young man, either in jest or in
earnest, to make provision for the flesh to fulfil the lusts
thereof (Rom. xiii. 14). Men were forbidden in the Law of
Moses to follow after the inclination of their heart and their
eyes (Num. xv. 39). The opposition between the recom-
mendation of Koheleth and the direction of the Lawgiver is,
indeed, more apparent than real. What is signified by the
ways of the heart in the two passages is by no means iden-
tical. WKoheleth was not an ascetic, and disapproved of all
attempts to drive men into courses contrary to nature. But
he was very far from being a sensualist. While the young

Koheleth’s advice and that of the Law, 5235

are bidden to enjoy the morning of life, they are at the
same time admonished in all things to have the fear of God
before their eyes.

It is interesting to note that the LXX. (if, as is probable,
the original text of that version be faithfully represented by
the Vatican Codex) have ventured to amend the recommenda-
tion of Koheleth into: “and walk blameless in the ways of
thy heart and not after the sight of thine eyes.” The Arabic
version has followed the Vatican text. But the negative μή
is wanting in the Cod. Alex. and other MSS. The Targum
exhibits the same disposition to explain away the meaning
of the writer, paraphrasing the text: “walk humbly (lit.
in humility) with the ways of thy heart, and be cautious
(prudent) in the seeing of thine eyes, and look not on evil.” 3

All such emendations are, however, unnecessary. For
Koheleth adds: “and know thou that for all these things
God will bring thee into the judgment.” Hitzig imagines the
writer to refer to the fact that the sins of youth are often
punished by Providence by sickness and premature old age.
And Winzer and Knobel cite in defence of the idea that the
writer refers to a judgment in this present life, such passages
‘as chap. ili. 17: “I said in my heart, God shall judge the
righteous and the ungodly, for there is a time there for every
purpose and for every work.” Compare also chaps. ii. 26;
vii. 17, 18, 26.3 But something further seems to be intended.

Ὁ Cod. B (the Vatican) omits after ἐν ὁδοῖς, the words καρδίας cov. A (the Alex.
MS.), C (the Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus), and S? (the secondhand of the Cod.
3 Sinaiticus), along with the Complutensian, omit μή. See Nestle, Veterds Test.
Gract Codices Vat. οὐ Sin. cum Textu Recepto Coll. (Lipsi : F. A, Brockhaus,

1880).
2 The LXX. read καὶ περιπάτει ἐν ὁδοῖς καρδίας σου ἄμωμος, καὶ μὴ ἐν ὁράσει

ὀφθαλμῶν σον. The Targum is At IM BO ‘IN DY ΠΣ ΠΏΣΞ ots
wea Sanpn ‘val WY Pa. The Vulg., Jerome and the Syr. follow the
reading of the Hebrew.

3 Reference may also be made to chap. viii. 5, 6, although that text is not a dis-
tinct parallel. The same truth is taught in many other places of the Old Testa-
ment, as Ps, vii. 7-9 3 ix, 5, 20; Isa, Ixvi, 16; Ezek. xxi, 30.

to

36 The judgment of the future.

We do not lay stress upon the use of the article, “the judgment,”
because it occurs in cases where no reference is intended to
the judgment in another world (as in Job ix. 32; xxii. 4).
But Koheleth notices on several occasions the fact that sin is
not always punished in this world (chap, viii. 14), while he
affirms at the same time that God has His own time and sea-
son for everything, and will ultimately execute vengeance‘on
transgressors. This consideration is especially urged on the
attention in chap. iii. 16,17. The thought of a judgment to
come reappears, too, in the epilogue (chap. xii. 14), where at
first sight the expression seems to be more general than that
in the passage before us (chap. xi. 9). But, if in the latter
the noun is rendered definite by the article, it is no less
clearly defined in the former by the words with which it is
connected. Had the writer, argues Winzer, intended to refer
to a judgment after death, he would not have spoken so
briefly on such a topic. But brevity is one of the peculiar
characteristics of the writer, and it is noteworthy that the
epilogue (whether its writer be identical or not with the
author of the work) contains an equally brief though most
distinct allusion to the final judgment. Although therefore
it cannot be denied that the same phraseology is used in
other books of the Old Testament in a general signification,!
we are fully justified in maintaining that Koheleth refers in
this passage to a final judgment after death. This is the
view of the passage taken by J. D. Michaelis, Rosenmiiller,
and Delitzsch. Of the time and nature of this final world-
judgment Koheleth, indeed, had no clear perception. His
faith in God led him to affirm its truth as a moral necessity,

! Thus for instance the Psalmist prays that God would not enter into judgment
with him ΤΠ} ΠΣ paving NIDADNY (Ps. exliii, 2). And Job complains
(chap. xiv. 3) that “ Thou bringest me into judgment with Thee” N30 nk}
ἽΡΩ paving. So in Job. ix, 32. paving YIN N12}, ‘let us enter together into
the judgment,” and in chap. xxii. 4, peta By 13), ‘will He enter with
thee into the judgment ?”

Condemnation of anger and peevishness. 237

though he did not possess the clearer light of Messianic
days.

Koheleth’s advice to the young is based upon the fact that
both “youth and manhood are vanity.” The opportunities
for enjoying life presented in youth are fleeting, and will soon
be past. Hence the joys peculiar to that season must be
embraced then or never. Koheleth’s advice is summed up
under three heads—“ banish moroseness from thy heart,”
“remove evil from thy flesh,” and “remember thy Creator in
the days of thy youth.”

The first recommendation is rendered by the ancient
versions, and in the margin of the A.V., by “put away anger
from thy heart.”! The translation in the text of the Author-
ised Version is much to be preferred: “ put away sorrow from
thy heart.” But the word is even better rendered in this place
by *moroseness or peevishness, which is-often the outcome of
a mind discontented, and therefore angry, on account of the
conditions of life in which its lot has been fixed by an over-
ruling Providence. For the opposite: to cheerfulness and
joyousness is that which is meant by the writer. The bane of
youth is a certain peevishness which, when no real sorrows or
troubles are present, often embitters the heart and oppresses
the individual by evils of its own creating. The state of
the heart has much to do with the health of the body. For,
where peevishness and moroseness of disposition obtain the
mastery, the individual becomes often careless as to his
bodily health. Life becomes to a great degree irksome, and

1 This ‘‘anger” has been explained by some to refer to the wrath of God, by
others to that excited in the breast of youth when called away from pleasure and
reminded of the fear of God. Bishop Wordsworth. has ventured to translate the
word (DY2) by provocation, which sense, that of incitement to anger, it bears in
some passages (1 Kings xy. 30; xxi. 22; 2 Kings xxiii. 26, etc.) He explains
the passage to mean: ‘‘take heed lest thou provoke God by the thoughts of thy
heart.” But the Bishop is unmindful of the fact that when the word is used in
such a signification its meaning is defined by the words with which it is united,
aud that the word has not that meaning when used absolutely, as in this passage.

238 Lneportance of early prety.

the youth speaks and acts as if it were a matter of indifference
when his earthly existence may terminate.

The second admonition “ remove evil from thy flesh” refers
rather to physical than to moral evil. The days of evil (in
chap. xii. 1) are days of sorrow and calamity, which our Lord
speaks of as an evil (ἡ κακία), “sufficient unto the day is the
evil thereof” (Matt. vi. 34). The ancient versions (such as the
LXX., Vulg. and Jerome, Targ. and Syr.) agree in explain-
ing the evil alluded to in the passage to be “ wickedness.”
But this does not harmonise with the expression “the evil
days,” which immediately follows (chap. xii. 1). But, if it be
borne in mind that Koheleth often speaks of sorrow and
trouble as directly caused by sin, it is highly probable that he
includes under the expression those sins common to youth
which the Apostle characterises as “sins against the body ”
(1 Cor. vi. 8).

If Koheleth in his advice to young men urges the impor-
tance of cheerfulness of mind, and of the proper care of the
body, he is still more emphatic in pressing upon them the
importance of piety as a guide in the days of youth and a
solace in “evil days.”1 For he adds: “and remember thy
Creator in the days of thy youth.” The plural in the original
Hebrew is the plural of excellence.” The older Christian
interpreters sought to explain all such expressions as having
reference to the plurality of persons in the Godhead, and
Bishop Wordsworth has recently adopted that view. It can-
not, however, be sustained by a critic. Some of the older
critics ventured to delete the plural °, and on the authority

1 So Job xxxv. 10, vey ποκα TES, ὁ τυλοῦο ἐς God my maker,” and in Isaiah liv. ς
you} miay aya py ous 3, “yor thy husband. is thy maker, Fahaveh (the
God) of hosts is His name ;” also Ps, exlix. 2. Comp. Josh. xxiv. 19.

2 Jt might be somewhat fanciful to trace in this threefold admonition, in which
directions are given with respect to the mental, bodily, and spiritual requirements
of youth, any distinct intention to set forth the doctrine of the tripartite nature

of man,

‘
4

The Days of evil or of old age. 239

of a few MSS. to read the word in the singular. But the
reading of the Masoretic text is unquestionably correct.

The Midrash Koheleth states on the authority of R. Joshua
ben Levi that the following saying in the Treatise Aboth
(iii. 1) was founded on this text: “ Consider three things and
thou wilt not come into the hands of transgression, know
from whence thou comest; and whither thou art going; and
before whom thou art to give account and reckoning.”
“ Remember JNA, thy source, 73, thy grave, 7N72, thy
Creator.” This Talmudic exposition was, as Dr. C. Taylor
has well noted, only designed as a mnemonic.’ But the hint
given has been eagerly caught at by Graetz, who arbitrarily
asserts that the form of the word in the accepted Hebrew
text is “abstruse,” and maintains that the wife of youth
is metaphorically referred to under the term 2 or ΝΞ. ὃ

“The days of evil” described by Koheleth in these and
the following verses are the days of old age. He refers to
the bodily decrepitude which usually marks the closing
scenes of a long life. There is, however, much difference of
opinion as to whether the writer relates literal facts, or whether
the verses are an allegorical representation of the decay in
old age of the various parts of the human frame. We do
not consider the anatomical interpretation satisfactory. But
there are also difficulties in the way of regarding this last
strain of Koheleth—a strain which exhibits many of the
characteristics of real poetry—as a formal “ dirge of death.”

Δ It is incorrect to refer to the ancient versions in a case like this as affording
evidence in favour of the singular reading. For they could not do otherwise than
render the word in the singular, whatever reading they might have had before them.
The suggestion of Schmidt and Nachtigal that O's might be taken as an
abstract noun in the sense of exis/ence, as if the writer bid the young man rejoice
in his existence, is untenable ; as is also the alternative suggestion of the former
critic that the word is to be connected with the cognate root in Arabic, and
explained to signify the years of health and vigour.

2 See C. Taylor, Sayings of the Fewish Fathers, p. 57. The saying is also cited
in the Jerus. Talmud, Sotah ii. 2, and elsewhere.

3 Soalso A. Geiger, Urschrift u. Uebersetaungen der Bibel, p. 405.

240 Man's thoughts turn oft towards the grave.

It seems to us to speak of man’s progress to the tomb,
through days of gloom and trial, through days of darkness
and bitterness, at a season even when all nature around is
blithe and gay. Death itself, though present throughout to
the mind of the writer, and contemplated by him as the last
and greatest “evil,” is not distinctly mentioned until near
thie close of his verses. In every day of earthly trial man’s
thoughts naturally turn towards his grave. Death, like a
“winged Pegasus,” as a quaint writer expresses it, “ posts
and speeds after men, easily gives them law, fetches them up
again, gallops and swallows the ground he goes (over), sets
out after every man as soon as he comes into the world, and
plays with him, as the cat with the mouse, as the greyhound
with the badger; sometimes he follows fair and afar off,
lingers aloof, and out of sight ; anon he spurs after, and by
and by is at the hecls in some sickness, and then, it may be,
gives us some breath again, but in the end overtakes us, and
is upon us with a jerk, as the snare over the fish or the fowl.”?

In discussing the sense of the closing passage of this re-
markable book, it is necessary to review briefly, in detail,
the various conflicting interpretations, proposed by eminent
scholars for each verse, ere we present a connected picture
of our own views.

Koheleth thus commences his description of “the evil
days” and of the years in which all joy is gone and man
is forced to exclaim: “I have no pleasure.” He bids the
young to remember their Creator —

Ere the sun is darkened, and the light ; and the moon and the stars,
And the clouds return after the heavy shower (00731) ;

In the day that the keepers of the house tremble,

And the men of power bend themselves,

And the grinding women ceasc because they are few,
And the women that look-out through the lattices are darkened.

1 Samuel Ward’s Life of Faith in Death, in Ward’s Sermons and Treatises at
the end of the 3rd vol. of 7homas Adam's Works (J..Nichol, 1862).

The darkening of the light of heaven. 241

The oldest interpreters consider this and the following
verses to be an allegorical description of old age. But, while
they thus agree in the general outline of their exposition,
they manifest in the details the utmost difference of opinion.!

Modern commentators have generally, though not always,
avoided the extravagancies of the earlier Jewish interpreters.
Knobel draws attention to the fact that the darkening of
the sun and the moon is descriptive of a change of days
of joy into days of mourning. He quotes such passages as
Job xxx. 26: “For I looked for good, and there came evil,
and I waited for light and there came darkness.” Compare
also Job xxix. 2, 3; and the language-of Isaiah (xiii. 10, 11)
in speaking of the downfall of Babylon; “For the stars of
heaven and the constellations thereof shall not give their
light. The sun shall be darkened in his going forth, and
the moon shall not cause her light to shine.” Similar is the
language of the prophet Ezekiel when. predicting the over-
throw of Egypt: “And when I put thee out, I will cover
the heaven and make the stars thereof dark, I will cover the
sun with a cloud and the moon shall not give her light. All
the bright lights of heaven will I make dark over thee, and
set darkness upon thy land, saith the Lord Jahaveh” (Ezek.
xxxii. 7, 8. And Joel, in writing of the coming of the
terrible locusts, describes the day as “a day of darkness and
of gloominess, a day of clouds and of thick darkness, as the

1 Thus the Talmud ($4add. 151 ὁ and 152 @) interprets the sun and light to
signify the forehead and the nose, the moon to be the soul, and the stars to be the
cheeks ;—while the Midrash on Koheleth explains the sun and light to be the
countenance and the nose, the moon to be the forehead (these latter are transposed
in the Midrash Vayikra), while the stars are explained to be the corners of the
cheeks which fall in in old age. According to the Targum the sun and light are
the brightness of the countenance and the light of the eyes, the moon and stars
are the comeliness of the cheeks and the apples of the eyes. The Talmud and
Midrash agree in explaining the last clause with the Targum—“ thy eyelids drop
down tears like clouds after rain.” Other interpretations, like those of Wedel
(in Schleuchzer, Physica Sacra, tom. iv.) and Witsius, etc., which explain the clouds
to mean severe attacks of catarrh, need only be alluded to here.

R

241 The seasons according to the Flebrews.

morning spread upon the mountains . . . Before their
face the people shall be much pained; all faces shall gather
blackness. The earth shall quake before them ; the heavens
shall tremble: the sun and the moon shall be dark, and the
stars shall withdraw their shining.” !

Vaihinger draws attention to the fact, that, while in the West
four seasons of the year are generally spoken of, the Hebrews
usually spoke only of two, summer and winter. They were
also wont to talk of youth and age as contrasted, understand-
ing under the designation of “ youths’ persons below forty
years of age, and under the designation of “old men” persons
sometimes not much over fifty. According to this expositor,
the writer is contrasting the winter of man’s existence with
the morning of life referred to in chap. xi. 10. His similes
are drawn from the gloomy winter of Palestine, when heavy
storms of rain succeed one another in rapid succession, and
darken the whole face of nature. Under such imagery
Kohelcth pourtrays the time when the heavy sorrows and
storms of life set in, and the joy of existence is obscured by
its gloomy earnestness.

Hitzig, Ewald and Zéckler take substantially the same
view. Delitzsch considers the passage as allegorical through-
out. He explains the sun to mean the sféri¢ of man (ΠῚ or
Mow), and calls attention to the fact that MV, the spzrit, like
wre, the sun,is both masculine and feminine. The spirit of
man, according to the Book of Proverbs (Prov. xx. 27), is the
candle of Jahaveh, which with its light of self-examination
and self-knowledge pierces through the innermost parts of
our nature. He compares our Lord’s description of the
spirit,—“ the light that is in thee” (τὸ φῶς τὸ ἐν σοί, Matt.
vi. 23). The “light” is accordingly explained to be the
activity of the spirit in its unweakened intensity, sharp com.

1 Compare also Amos viii. 9, 10, and by way of contrast, Job xi. 17; Isaiah
xxx. 26, and Ix. Io.

Allegorical exposition of the lights of heaven. 243

prehension, clear thinking, true and. serviceable memory.
The moon on the other hand represents the sow. For the
moon (whether termed IT)" or 7123?) when contrasted with the
sun is a feminine symbol.| The animal soul by means of
which the spirit becomes the principle of the bodily life (Gen.
ii. 7) when viewed in relation to the spirit is, according to
Delitzsch, “ the weaker vessel.” Hence the spirit cheers the
soul with the words, “why art thou cast down, O my soul
(82) ? (Ps. xlii. 6), As Koheleth was acquainted with the
seven planetary gods of the Babylonian-Assyrian astrologi-
cal system, namely, the sun, moon, and the five planets,
Delitzsch thinks it probable that the’ writer considered the
five stars to be allegorical of the five senses by which the soul
has cognizance of the outer world. The clouds which return
after the rain are explained by Delitzsch to be those attacks
of sickness and bodily weakness which in old age confuse
thought, obscure self-consciousness, and which, when they
have once seized hold of the frame, though they may for a
time cease, return again, and hinder the aged one from enjoy-
ing perfect health.

The third verse admits of easy explanation on the lines of
the allegorical interpretation. The watchers of the house are,
according to this view, the ribs and the loins, or the knees;
“the men of power” the bones, and those that look out at
the windows, the eyes. The Midrash explains the watchers
to be the ribs, “the men of power” the arms, and the grind-
ing women the organs of digestion,’ while the teeth are re-
garded as the subject of the verb “are few.” The Targum

* Compare Gen. xxxvii. 9, ff, where the sun in the dream of Joseph symbol-
izes the patriarch Jacob, and the moon Leah.

? The Midrash Koheleth has DDINN, which, though the word possibly may have
a Semitic origin (vid. Levy’s Mewheb. W. B.), is probably derived from the Latin
omasum, the gut, or intestines, which in Midrash Lev. rab. sec. 4, is said to serve
to grind up the food. The Midrash divides the two clauses of the last sentence of

verse 3, ‘the grinding maids cease because they are few,” into ‘‘the grinding
maids stand still, that is the digestive organs, and are few, that is, the teeth.”

244 The watchers and the gvinding-matds.

more naturally considers the watchers to be the aged knees
which tremble, the men of power the arms, the grinders
the teeth. Both agree in explaining the lookers out at the
windows to be the eyes.

Knobel, Ewald and Delitzsch consider the body of man to
be here pourtrayed as a building threatened from within with
impending ruin. (Compare Job iv. 19, and the Apostle’s
language in 2 Cor. v. 1, etc.) They explain the keepers or
watchers of the house to be the hands and arms; and the
verb “tremble” might very suitably be used in reference to
the limbs of the old and palsied man. They further interpret
“the men of power” to be the feet and legs, in accordance
with the language of the Psalmist (Ps. cxlvii. 10, compare
Cant. x. 15); and the expression “bend themselves” harmon-
izes well with this explanation.

Nor can it be denied that the expression “the grinding
maids cease,” might naturally mean that the teeth can no
longer perform their ordinary work! Female slaves in the
East generally perform the duty of grinding the corn for the
daily consumption of the family.

The clause may be rendered “the grinding women cease
because they are few,” which is the translation of all the
ancient versions (except the Targum), and thus the statement
might refer to the loss of teeth in old age. The verb has also
been rendered transitively,as Dr. C. Taylor translates it: “the
grinding maids cease when they have wrought a little,” that
is, according to his idea, they have little to do because, at the
approach of death, entertainments are no longer given.?

1 The molar teeth are termed in Arabic and Syriac, as by us, the grinders, and
the word for teeth, though masculine in the ancient Hebrew is, as Delitzsch
observes, feminine in the later or Mishnaic. He notes that the Greeks also used
the expression μύλαι or μύλοι for the teeth, and compares the translation of the
LXX. of Psalm lvii. 7, τὰς μύλας τῶν λεόντων.

4 The Targum renders loosely: ‘‘and the teeth of thy mouth are destroyed
until they cannot chew food.” The piel }OY%) may be intransitive, according to

The lookers-out at the windows. 245

“Those that look out at the windows” might without
violence be interpreted of the organs of sight, whose windows
are the eyelids with their accompanying eye-lashes, behind
which the eyes are partly concealed.. In any description
of old age some reference would certainly be expected to
be made to the common infirmity of loss of sight.

But serious difficulties beset the allegorical interpretation
in the explanation of the fourth and following verses. We
may here render the fourth verse :—

And doors are shut in the street

When the sound of the mill is low (a7 ceases) ;
And one rises at the voice of the bird,

And all the daughters of song are humbled.

The Targum explains the first line of the old man being
no longer able to go out into the street.' Some, as Knobel,
have explained it of the old man’s silence. Delitzsch lays
stress on the fact that the word for doors is dual, and, there-

the analogy of AMP, ¢o become blunt, in chap. x. 19. Taylor, however, in his
critical notes on Aboth iv. (Sayings of the Fewish Fathers, p. 16), maintains that
the constant usage of the Mishna is in favour of the transitive sense of the verb
in question. In Aboth iv. 14, it is contrasted with bya : “Rabbi Meir used to
say, have little business (PPYA DYDD ν}), and be busy in the Thorah (in reading
and studying it) . . . and if thou ceasest from (studying) the Thorah (ON1,
MAD 1d AbD3), thou wilt have idlers many against thee,” or, perhaps, as Levy,
Neuheb. W. B., translates the clause, “ many disturbing things will set themselves
against thee.” But the verb can scarcely be regarded as a transitive in the passage
in question ; for the 3, which is ‘‘ for,” ‘* because,” not “where,” and the perfect
tense seem to require the intransitive sense. In Strack’s edition of the Spriiche
der Vater, the passage is Aboth iv. 10. Strack has retained the numeration found
in the editions of the Mishna. A different numeration of the sections is to be
found in the editions of the Jewish Prayer Book (WD). Dr. C. Taylor follows
in his arrangement the Cambridge Manuscript.

1 The ancient Jewish interpreters in the Talmud and Midrash explain the
doors to be the openings in the human body for the purposes of excretion, which
are closed in old age when the teeth can no longer masticate, or the stomach
digest, the food. In the morning prayer of the Jews there is a thanksgiving as
follows: ‘‘ Blessed be thou, Lord our God, King of the world, who hast wisely
formed man and created in him many openings and orifices (0°31 3) ἿΔ si
ordabn ovdabn).” But a poet would scarcely introduce such representations into
his verses.

246 The doors shut towards the street.

fore, points to a pair of similarly fashioned and_ related
members of the body. He also insists on the point that the
expression “in the street,” or “towards the street,” indicates
that the members referred to are such as are generally ex-
posed to view, and not those which decency requires to be
screened from ordinary gaze. Hence he follows here in the
main Jerome's interpretation. The jaws of the leviathan are
termed “the doors of his face” (Job xli. 6, A.V. xli. 14), and
the Psalmist prays that God will “keep the door” of his lips
(Ps. cxli. 3). A similar phrase, but not identical, is used by
Micah (chap. vii. 5). Hence Herzfeld and Delitzsch consider
the lips or jaws to be compared to a double-leaved door, and
the passage to refer to the lips closing together in old age in
consequence of the loss of the teeth, which while they remain
keep the jaws and lips apart. Zockler takes the same view;
but his American editor Tayler Lewis remarks that the dual
is just as applicable to the eyes and the ears as to the lips.
The latter considers the interpretation of Hengstenberg more
in accordance with the context. Hengstenberg explains it of
the ear, which in old age is closed to external sounds, and
Tayler Lewis of all the various senses being closed to
ordinary impressions, the senses being the avenues to the
outer world.

Delitzsch translates “the doors are shut towards the street”
or “on the street side,” referring the clause, as already noted,
to the closing together of the jaws from loss of teeth. Ewald
and Vaihinger also refer it to the closing of the mouth; but
the former considers the allusion to be to the shutting of the
mouth against food, while the latter thinks that the reference
is to the silence of the aged man.

Ewald, Delitzsch and others interpret the sound of the mill
becoming low as signifying that, when the old man masticates
his food, the jaws of the toothless mouth being closed, the
dull sound of munching is all that can be heard. Hitzig’s

The sound of the mill ceasing. 247

objection to this interpretation seems valid, namely, that no
great noise is usually made in chewing, and such a trifle is
unworthy of notice by a poet. Hitzig himself explains the
passage of the weakness of the voice in age. But, if the teeth
are interpreted to be the grinding maids, the mouth must (to
be consistent) represent the mill; and, if it be unpoetical to
regard the clause as referring to the dull munching noise
made by the old man in masticating his food, this fact dis-
credits the allegorical interpretation.

According to our view, the clause “when the sound of the
mill is low” is best regarded as a note of time. The words
that follow, translated in our Authorised Version, “and he
shall rise up at the voice of the bird,” have been variously
rendered and expounded. The true reading of the Hebrew
text is the imperfect jussive, and not the imperfect indicative,
as printed in the ordinary Hebrew Bibles.3 The importance
of this fact will be noticed presently.

The Talmud, Midrash and Targum render the clause, as
our A.V., “and he shall rise up at the voice of the bird,’
or, as St. Jerome explains it, at cock-crowing.* The objection
urged by Ginsburg against this interpretation is not for-

1 Tt is curious to notice that Prof. Tayler Lewis asserts that the grinding maids
undoubtedly represent the teeth, and yet maintains that the grinding itself, or ‘‘ the
mill is not so much meray oriea! as illustrative,” and is to be taken in its primary
sense as showing the old man’s dulness of hearing, by whom ‘‘the most familiar
and household sounds, such as that of the grinding mill, are faintly distinguished.”

2 The word DEY in this sentence has been regarded by all the ancient versions
(except that of Symmachus) as a noun. It is, however, manifestly the infinitive
construct. The form in ὦ is rare, though it occurs in a few verbs which have a
in the imperfect, or whose second radical is a guttural. See Gesenius-Kautzsch,
845, 1 @; Bottcher, Zehrd. §987,5; Konig, Lehre. § 21, 4; Stade, ἃ 619 a. The
LXX. have erroneously regarded NINN as a participle.

% That is, pipy, and not O39), vid. crit. comm. See Ges.-Kautzsch § 72,
rem. 4; Konig, Lehvats: «+P. 442, The Masora magna notes that the word occurs
twice, once with cholem (milel), and once with a short vowel, kametz-chatuph (milra).
See Ochla-ve-Ochla, no. 5 ; Levita’s lag al ha-Massoreth, p- 208 ed. Ginsburg.

4 The rendering of the Targum is: ‘‘and thou shalt awake from thy sleep
at the sound of a bird, as at thieves that go about during the night.” The last
clause is significant as showing an attempt to combine two opposing interpreta-

248 7072 rising up at the voice of the bird.

midable, namely, “that, though aged people may easily be
awakened by a slight noise, yet they do not rise up at the
sound of a bird.” For the phrase may simply mean that
the old man’s sleep is broken by the first chirping of the
birds in the early morning.

If, however, the clause that follows be supposed to refer to
deafness as a characteristic of old age, which prevents the aged
man from taking pleasure any longer in female singers, there
is an apparent incongruity. For the old man would be repre-
sented in one clause as having his slumbers broken by the
chirping of the birds, and in the next as too deaf to hear
the songs of women. There is no difficulty in explaining the
first clause of the singing of birds in the early morning as a
note of time, the idea of the passage. being that one wakes
early in the morning when the birds begin to sing.

Hitzig, Ewald and Zéckler consider the allusion in the
passage to be to the weak voice of the aged man. The verb
is regarded by them as impersonal, inasmuch as no previous
mention is made of the voice. They accordingly translate :
“and it seems (lit. riseth) like the voice of a sparrow,” or, as
Kleinert, “and when it raises itself it is as the chirping of a
bird,”! understanding the allusion to be to the piping, whisper-
ing voice of old age, “his big manly voice, Turning again
towards childish treble.” * Ewald refers in illustration of the
idea to Isaiah xxix. 4, where Cheyne translates: “thy speech
shall be subdued (coming) from the dust, and thy voice
shall be as that of a ghost from the ground, and from the
dust thy speech shall come chirpingly.”3 In support of the
tions. Jerome’s words are: ‘‘porro consurgere eum ad vocem volucris ostendit,
quod frigescente jam sanguine et humore siccato, quibus materiis sopor alitur, ad
levem sonitum evigilet, noctisque medio, quum gallus cecinerit, festinus exsurgat.”

1 Ginsburg’s statement that the rendering of Ewald, Hitzig, and others, ** the
noise of the mill rises to the voice of a sparrow” is at least open to misconception.

* Shakespeare, als you dike tt, Act ii. 7.

“On the supposed chirping and muttering of ghosts, see Cheyne’ on Isaiah
viii. 19.

The storm theory of the passage. 249

rendering of the phrase used in the original as signifying Zo
pass from one state to another, Hitzig refers to Zeph. iii. 8;
1 Sam, xxii. 13; Micah ii. 8. But these references are un-
satisfactory.!_ Delitzsch observes that, whenever the words
“at the voice” or “at the cry” (4p). are connected with a
verb denoting motion, whether bodily or mental, the exciting
cause of the movement is referred to, Thus the Israelites are
represented as fleeing at the cry (0p) of those who were
swallowed up in the earthquake (Num. xvi. 34). The coasts,
suburbs, or fleets belonging to Tyre (whatever be the mean-
ing of mwry2), are represented by Ezekiel (chap. xxvii. 28)
as trembling at the sound of the cry (APPT 7?) of the
Tyrian pilots; while Job speaks of the children who rejoice
at the sound (5'P9) of the pipe (Job xxi. 12). See also Habb.
iii. τό.

According to Umbreit, Koheleth depicts in these verses
the advance of death under the imagery of an approaching
storm, which darkens the heavens, startles even men of power,
and puts a stop to all work. He translates the clause in
question, “and the bird raises its voice toa shriek.” Ginsburg
adopts this view, and, regarding the swallow as the bird re-
ferred to, renders “and the swallow shall rise to shriek,” in
allusion to the cries of that bird before a storm. But this is
opposed to the Hebrew accentuation.? The use of the jus-
sive is also against this rendering. For that form indicates
that the clause is to be viewed as conditional, and connected
either with the “in the day when” of verse 3, or the “before
that,” or “ere,” which is twice repeated in the previous verses.

1 For in the latter two passages the ordinary signification of sis/zg up is the
true one ; as also in Zeph. iii. 8, where it is necessary, in order to extract the sense
given to the passage by Hitzig (namely, ‘‘unto the day, when I come forward as

witness’), to abandon the traditional vocalization of the Hebrew text, and on the
authority of the LNX, and Syr. to read awd instead of awd. Similarly the LXX.,

Targ. and Syr., read in Isaiah xxx. 8 aw i in place of sw,
2 According to which yp is the construct governing BST i in the genitive.

250 The expositions of “the daughters of song.”

The phrase does, indeed, sometimes mean to rise up for the
purpose of performing an‘action But, had the writer in-
tended to say “the swallow shall rise to shriek” (Ginsburg),
or “the bird of evil omen (the owl or raven) raises his dirge,”
(Taylor), he would have used a different construction.”

The Talmud explains the last clause in the verse, “and all
the daughters of song shall be brought low,” to mean that
music and songs appear to the old man like ordinary chat-
tering, while the Targum considers the’ clause to refer to the
man himself, “thy lips will lower themselves (}DD7")) from
singing a song.” Several modern scholars have followed the
rendering of the Targum, though without referring the words
to the lips. Thus Hitzig understands “the daughters of
song” to mean the simple songs which the old man tries to
sing, but for which he finds that his voice is no longer equal ;
and Ewald translates the phrase “daughters of song” by
“singing birds,” but considers the voice to mean allegorically
the old man’s song, and his words® to be the singing birds,
once loud and distinct, now feeble like the chirping of a
small bird. Singing, however, is not. such a common ac-

1 Ginsburg refers in proof of this to Psalm Ixxvi. 10, where the phrase DAP
wearin? occurs in the sense of ¢o rise to judgment, i.e. to rise in order to execute
judgment, So also mondrd DAP, to rise up for war, Jer. xlix. 14. But the third
passage he refers to, Ps. cxxxii. 8, apm }01 7191) is somewhat doubtful.
The Arabic construction os ἕξι: she began to lament, cited by Taylor
is not ad rem. See ἢ, Wright’s Arab. Gram., ii. § 42 rem. g. (p. 118, 2nd ed.).
Taylor, however, observes justly that the idea of rising for she purpose of speaking
is a very ordinary one, but the verb would be then used without dip> or any
such equivalent. It is moreover open to serious doubt whether that noun would

thus, without any qualification in the context, be used in the sense of a shrieé or a
screech,

2 He would have written, as Delitzsch has observed Sip nnd “iaso DAP?
or at least WEST Sipd Dip.

3. Ewald considers the sis. words, Which is feminine, to be pointed to by the
nina,

That expression must refer to singing women. 251

complishment as to justify a poet speaking of the loss of
voice as one of the striking features of old age.

Ginsburg, who adopts the view of Umbreit as to the general
meaning of the passage, explains with Ewald the “ daughters
of song” to be “ singing birds,” although he takes the phrase
literally. But, as Taylor observes, “the word VW is only used
of articulate song.” It can be applied to a “song” such as
those of David, but not to the song of a bird. The daughters
of song are evidently “singing women,” like those of whom
Barzillai spoke when he said that he was unable by reason
of his advanced age any longer to hear “the voice of singing
men and singing women ” (2 Sam. xix. 36).}

If the fourth verse has been variously interpreted, much
more the fifth, which we may here render,—

Even they are afraid of that which is high,
And all-kinds-of-fears are in the way ;
Then the almond-tree is in bloom,

And the locust drags-itself along,

But unavailing is the caperberry ;

For the man is going to his eternal house,
And the mourners go about in the street.

Delitzsch regards the explanation of the first clause given
by the Talmud and Midrash as correct in the main. These
Jewish authorities refer it to the dread which aged persons
have of hills on the road, which are magnified by their fears

1 The verb used in the passage for ‘‘ are humbled,” or ‘‘ brought low” is anys,
from the stem NN’. This form, however, has been explained as an imperfect kal
formed after the Aramaic fashion by the doubling of the first radical. So Olshausen,
§ 243 d., Ges.-Kautzsch, § 67, rem. 3, Stade, § 490 a. But, inasmuch as an imper-
fect kal in o of the same verb, MU, is in use, and has a transitive force, it is
better with Rodiger, Battcher, Kénig and others, to regard MY’? as a regular imper-
fect niphal. The niphal may be viewed as the regular passive of kal, the latter
being used in the sense of being bowed down with sorrow ; or it may be explained
after the analogy of Isaiah xxix. 4, where the subdued sound of the voice is signi-
fied. The majority of the ancient versions understand it in the sense of ‘‘ being
humbled.” So the LXX., Syr. and Aquila; but the Vulg. and Jerome interpret
it in the sense of being Awshed into silence (obsurdescent, obmutescent). Umbreit
and Elster explain it as referring to the birds who lower themselves in the air, fly
low, and flutter about uneasily in dread of the coming storm.

252 The fears on the way.

into veritable mountains, so that every journey appears for-
midable. The Midrash observes that, if an old man is asked
to a feast, the first question he asks is, how many steps will
he have to mount to get to the banqueting room? Such an
explanation scarcely suits the dignity of the poem. Delitzsch
understands the passage to mean that the old man is afraid
of any hill, for his breath fails him and his legs are unequal
tothe strain.

A similar view is taken by the ancient versions, and by
Ewald in his later editions! Umbreit, Elster, and Ginsburg
explain the clause as depicting the storm gathering overhead.
The rendering of the Targum seems like an attempt to com-
bine in one idea two different interpretations. It is “thou
shalt even be afraid to call to mind the actions (done) before
this (time), and a small ascent shall be in thy estimation
like a great mountain when thou art walking on the road.”
Plumptre observes: “to be afraid of a hill expresses not
merely, or chiefly, the failure of strength of limb to climb
mountains, but the temper that, as we say, makes mountains
out of molehills ; that, like the slothful man of Proverbs xxii.
13, sees a lion in the path.” But the view of the passage pro-
pounded by Taylor seems to us preferable, namely, that the
expression “ from on high” in the former part of the sentence
is contrasted with “in the way” in the second. The thought
would then be similar to that in the Book of Job (chap. xviii.
11), “the terror not only lowers upon them from above, but
lurks also beneath their feet.” *

It may be worth while here to notice the peculiar inter-
pretation which Hahn has given of the whole passage. He

1 See note on p. 254.

*. Taylor aptly compares the passage in the Koran (Sura vi. 65). “* Say, Ie it
is that hath power to send upon you punishment from above you and from beneath
your fect.” He refers also to Isaiah viii. 21, 22, where a similar contrast is found :
“ they shall fret themselves, and curse their king and God, and look upward.
And they shall look unto the earth ; and behold trouble and darkness.”

fTahn's exposition of the passage. 253

rightly rejects the idea of Hengstenberg, adopted by some
later expositors of less note, that Koheleth had in view the
old age of the ungodly; or, as others. have suggested, that
the last days of a worn-out sensualist are here depicted.
Had the writer had either the one or the other idea in view,
he would not have expressed himself in such general terms.
Moreover, as Hahn notes, the old age of the wicked is not
always miserable. Job speaks of it as the very reverse (xxi.
7 ff.). Hahn maintains that “the night of death” is here
described. Man, according to him, emerged at his birth from
darkness to the light of day, and Koheleth refers to this fact
when he speaks of the clouds of darkness returning after the
destructive storm (Ezek. xiii. 11; comp. Isa. xxv. 4) which
destroys the building.

In common with the other allegorists, Hahn maintains
that the house is the body of man in which his spirit resides.
But he interprets the watchers and strong men to be the
powers of life which have their root in the spirit and pervade
the whole body,—which, instead of resting by night, as do
the legs and arms, continue always to discharge their ap-
pointed tasks. It is when these become powerless that death
forces its way into the building.

Hahn explains the grinding women to be the vital powers
pervading the frame, which provide for its wants and assimi-
late the food necessary for its support. The street, according
to him, is the outer world ; the doors thereto are the senses.
So far the interpretation seems to run smoothly enough ; but,
when the sound of the mill becoming low is explained as a
reference to the heart and its pulsations, one sees how much
better it would have been had the sound of the mill been
viewed as merely part of the drapery of the allegory ; for the
more noiselessly the heart performs its functions, and the less
it forces itself into notice, the more healthy and vigorous is
the life of the individual.

254 The soul like a caged bird.

But far more objectionable is his explanation of the next
clause, where he supposes the soul to be compared to a bird
in a cage, and renders, “and the bird rises (from its earthly
prison) at the voice,” ze. of God, which calls it to return
(comp. Ps. xc, 3). There is no article in the original (ip),
and it is almost impossible that the soul, which, according to
this interpretation, has been all along spoken of as the master
directing the watchers and men of power, and ruling over the
grinding maids, etc., should, without warning, be suddenly
compared to a bird in a cage, Nor is there anything to
justify the explanation of “the daughters of song” as mean-
ing “songs, which are his daughters.”

Hahn’s translation of verse 5 is unique, and unlikely to
find favour with Biblical interpreters: ‘Also they are afraid
before the High One (God),! as well as of the terrors on the
way”; namely, the terrors of death, which intervene between
that which is on this side and the other side of the grave; for
Hahn considers the way spoken of to be that which leads
from earth to the High and Lofty One who is throned in
heaven. In order to extract this sense from the passage
he is forced to reject the translation “almond tree” or
“almond fruit,” which is the uniform sense of the Hebrew
noun in verse 5, and to take it in the signification of “the
watchful one”? as an appellation of the soul of man “ whose

To bring out this meaning Hahn arbitrarily supplies }!) before D‘ANN1 out of
the‘preceding 7123, Hahn says that Ewald takes the same view of 12319, re-
ferring it to God, and appeals to Koh. v. 7. The absence of the article in itself
makes this translation improbable. Whatever Ewald’s earlier opinicns may have
been, in his Dichter des Alten Bundes he rejects this view, as he explains his
translation “νοῦ dem Hohen” to mean ‘twas schwer zu ersteigen ist.” In his
Ausf. Lehrb. (δια Ausg. 1870) § 179 a, note, he says, “ὁ Erschrecken ist am Wege
4. i, man erschrickt vor dem Wege (aus Altersschwache) ist der sicherste Sinn der
Worte Qoh. xii. 5, ahnlich wie das vorige Glied sich auf die Furcht vor dem Em-
porsteigen bezieht.” It may be noted that Ibn Ezra also gives this turn to the
passage, as he says that the fear alluded to is that the old man’s thoughts tell him
that his spirit must soon quit his body and go to the high heaven.

2 Note Plumptre’s rendering of this word, which is commented on at p. 259.

The prophetical exposition of R. Levi. 255

being is watchfulness, self-consciousness and freedom.” The
verb in the clause he translates “ ¢o get feathers.” Thus the
sense is explained to be, “the watchful one obtains pinions,
and the locust disburdens itself,” this expression being re-
garded as synonymous with “the butterfly emerges from its
chrysalis,’ “and the poor (one)? breaks forth”; ze the
spirit breaks its earthly shell, “the body of our humiliation ”
(Phil. iii. 21), “for man goeth to his eternal house,” the king-
dom of glory, which would be almost equivalent to that
which the Apostle speaks of in 2 Cor, v. I, 2.

This attempt to ingraft New Testament ideas upon the
book of the Old Testament philosopher cannot be regarded
as successful. However ingeniously worked out in its details,
it cannot stand the test of any critical examination ; and, in-
dependently of this fact, it is in itself too fanciful. Its very
originality is its most decisive condemnation.

A remarkable prophetical exposition of the chapter is
given by R. Joshua of Sikhnin, in the name of R. Levi, in
the Introduction to the Midrash on the Book of Lamenta-
tions (sect. 23). It explains “the days of youth” in verse I
of the period of Israel’s prosperity, “the days of evil” of the
time of the exile. The darkening of the “sun” describes the
obscuration of the glory of the Davidic house (comp. Ps.

1 YNI is explained as equivalent to }42) from 72, which Hahn regards a
denominative from nya, a pinion (Job xxxix. 13). See on this verb, note on
Ῥ. 258.

2 Hahn takes mIVAN to be the feminine of the adjective Hay. The daghesh
forte in the ¥ is no decided objection to this view. For the word might be re-
garded as a strengthened form of ΡΟ Compare, on this use of the daghesh,
Bottcher, Zehrd. § 295, 2. But the peculiarity of punctuation was more probably
adopted by the punctuators to preserve the true traditional view of the passage,
according to which the word was regarded not as the feminine of }1N, but as a
noun denoting the cagerberry, although the Rabbinical word used for the latter
in the Talmud is pronounced exactly in the same way as the feminine adjective
referred to. See p. 263. Compare the difference between {JY and 1), which,
though slight in itself, is highly significant. See Friedrich Delitzsch, Wo lag das
Paradies! p. 3 ff

256 The prophetical exposition of R. Levi.

Ixxxix. 37); “the light” is the Law (Prov. vi. 23); “the
moon,” the Sanhedrin ; “the stars,” the Rabbis (Dan. xii. 3) ;
“the clouds returning after the rain,” the troubles predicted
by Jeremiah. “The watchers of the house” are the watches
of the Priests and Levites (Num. viii. 21); “the sound of the
mills,” the great Mishnaioth, “few” of which are contained
in the Talmud ; or, according to others, the Israelites them-
selves, busied day and night about the Law (Josh. 1. 8);
“the lookers out of the windows” who are “darkened,” the
Jewish exiles scattered among the nations. “The voice of
the bird” is explained to be that of the cruel Nebuchad-
nezzar, whose actions caused the songs of “the daughters of
song” to cease throughout the land (Isa. xxiv. 9); “the fears
in the way” are interpreted of the difficulties which Nebu-
chadnezzar dreaded when secking to. discharge that work
of judgment which he was commissioned by the Most High
to perform. (Comp. Ezek. xxi. 26 ff, A.V. xxi. 21 ff). The
blossoming of “the almond” tree is explained, after the
analogy of Jer. i. 11, of the hastening of the day of wrath;
the “locust” being “burdensome” of the golden image of
Nebuchadnezzar (Dan. iii. 1); the powerlessness of “the
caperberry’” of the merit of the fathers as of no avail to stay
the destruction. The clause “for man goeth to his house of
the world” (for so the phrase in verse § is evidently under-
stood), is explained of Babylon itself; while the mourners
are interpreted of the weepers for Jeconiah or Jehoiachin.!
The “silver cord” is explained of “the chain of genealo-
gies” (pony nowdw) ; “the golden bowl” of the words of
the Law (Ps. xix. 11) ; the “pitcher at the fountain” either
of the pitcher of Baruch at the fountain of Jeremiah, or of the
pitcher of Jeremiah at the fountain of Baruch (Jer. xxxvi.
18). The “wheel broken at the cistern” is also interpreted

-opion pws 1330 . in avn yn Saap why na bs oon ΡΠ 5
amar mda ΠῚ

The almond-tree in blossom. 257

of the destruction at Babylon (comp. Jer. li. 49. The dust
returning to the earth as it was is explained of the return
to Babylon. “They were from Babylon and they returned
there.” “‘And the spirit returns to God, etc, that is, the
Holy Spirit, When the Holy Spirit was taken away from
them, they went into captivity, and, when they went into
captivity, Jeremiah’s lamentation arose. over them, ‘how doth
the city sit solitary’ (Lam. i. 1).”

Kaiser, in his curious book on Koheleth,? in which he en-
deavours to make out that the work describes under various
forms the history of Israel from the time of Solomon to the
exile, naturally explains the 12th chapter in reference to the
downfall of the Jewish State. His interpretation, though not
by any means identical with that given in the Introduction
to the Midrash nor borrowed therefrom, is in some respects
similar. Such prophetical interpretations, though strained in
a few particulars, require scarcely more violence to be done
to the original than is done in the endeavour to interpret the
whole chapter as an allegorical picture of old age.

But to return. A review of all the various expositions
suggested for the clause in the 5th verse rendered by us,
“and the almond-tree flourishes,” or “is in bloom,” would
here be impossible. The explanations of the Talmud,
Midrash, and Targum are too far-fetched to require special
notice. The noun in the sentence is used to denote both
the almond-tree and the nuts which grow thereon, This in
itself opens the door to a variety of interpretations. The verb
is rendered by Gesenius ἡ shall be despised,” and that scholar
considers the writer to refer to the almonds which the old
man can no longer eat, his teeth being gone. The fact,
however, that the correct reading of the passage has the

2 ymin own yn Saan.
3 Koheleth, das Collectivum der Davidischen Konige in Jerusalem, ein historisches
Lehrgedicht tiber den Omstura des jiidischen Staates (Erlangen, 1823).

5

258 The difficulty of the verse.

verb in the jussive is a serious difficulty in the way of this
and many other interpretations! The best translation of
this verb is unquestionably that given by the majority of
the ancient versions, inclusive of the LXX., Vulg. and partly
of the Syr, and adopted by our A.V., namely, zs zz dlos-
som; and the peculiar form which appears in the Hebrew
text is to be regarded either as caused by an early blunder
of some scribe, or as having arisen from an old marginal
reading.

Ewald, Delitzsch, and many modern as well as ancient
commentators, regard the clause as picturing the snowy hair

4 Gesenius in his Thesaurus regards 1" δὲ) as the hiphil of }'N1, for ys
Similar instances can be cited in which an δὲ gives its vowel to a vowelless con-
sonant preceding. There is, however, a second irregularity in the word, namely,
the — in place of the ‘>. The verb is regarded by other scholars as the impf.
hiphil of Ὑ ΝΣ, το shine, to bloom ; the perfect hiphil of this verb occurs, though
with a peculiarity of punctuation, in Cant. vi. 11. But the form in Koheleth is
altogether irregular, as the δὲ cannot be satisfactorily accounted for. The vowels
appended to the word show that the punctuators connected it with ΚΝ. The
instances, however, adduced by Ewald and Delitzsch, in order to prove that
the form in the Hebrew text is simply an incorrect mode of }'}) are not satis-
factory. Kimchi’s derivation of the verb from }1J, an unused stem, as if it were
a denominative from '$), ἃ blossom, affords no assistance. The form is, perhaps,
best viewed as a simple blunder, if the vowels of the text be not regarded as
belonging to an unnoticed k’ri, as Bottcher has suggested in several cases, and
which Konig (Z¢s¢.-477/. Lehrgeb. der heb, Spr. pp. 313, 314) considers probable
here. It has been thought that the punctuation was the result of an early attempt
to amend the text. For Bottcher and Konig maintain that APL’, the almond, is
a euphemism for the phad/us, and that it was considered desirable to give a better
turn to the passage. The authority of the ancient versions is against this notion,
which, besides having no evidence on which it can be based, is in itself repulsive in
the extreme.

If the vowels attached to the word be regarded as belonging to an unnoticed
k’ri, the word in the text must, as in all such cases, be treated as unpointed.
The word then must be connected with }SJ, but can be read in several ways.
(1) As YS imperf. kal used impersonally, ‘‘ ove despises the almond.” Hitzig
renders the clause thus pointed, ‘‘and the almond-tree,” an allegorical name for
the youthful maiden, ‘‘ refuses,” ze to give ils fruit to the aged man, This
explanation, like many of Hitzig’s, is remarkable for its perverse ingenuity, (2)
The word may be regarded as the imperf. hiphil “S)), scriptio defectiva, or
YS, or (3), which would be the easiest mode of pointing, as 7.83), the impf.
niphal, wid? be despised, a view taken by several critics.

The white blossoms of the alniond-tice. 259:

on the head of the aged man. The blossoming almond-tree
would thus indicate what is expressed by the Latin poet:

*
“ Temporibus geminis canebat sparsa senectus.’—l7xgil, <i. v. 416.

The objection urged against this interpretation by Knobel,
and repeated by Plumptre, namely, that the colour of the
blossoms of the almond-tree is pink and not white, has
long ago been answered by Ch, F. Bauer (1732). The latter
has noted that the almond blossoms turn to a snowy white
ere they fall from the tree. The American missionary
Thomson, who was well acquainted with this appearance of
the almond-tree in Palestine speaks of it (in his Land and
the Book) as often completely covered with white blossoms.!
Plumptre, who “records but only to reject” the opinion that
the almond blossoms represent the white hairs of old age,
falls back, with Symmachus and the Syr., upon the original
meaning of the stem PW, 210 watch, to be watchful, and
maintains that “the true meaning is to be found in the
significance of the Hebrew name for almond-tree (Shaked =
the early waking tree), comp. Jer. 1.11.” His idea is that “the
enigmatic phrase describes the zzsomnia which often attends
old age. The tree that flourishes then is the tree of Vgzlan-
zia or Wakefulness.” But, as the noun in question is never
used in any other sense than that of the almond-tree, or
the almond-nut, all interpretations which seek to assign
another signification to it may be worthy of record, as proof
of ingenuity, but must be rejected.

The noun used in the next clause (1M) certainly means
the locust, and it is so rendered by the LXX., Syr., Arab.
and Vulg. It is found in four other passages (Lev. xi. 22 ;
Num. xiii. 33; Isa. xl 22; 1 Chron. vii. 17). It occurs

1 Ewald in his footnote cites a passage from Bodenstedt (1001 Tage 1m Oriente,
ii, p. 237), where that traveller incidentally speaks. of the white blossoms falling
off the almond-trees like flakes of snow.

260 Various expositions of “the locust.”

in the list of animals, which, according to the Mosaic Law
(Lev. xi. 22), might be used for food. Jewish interpreters
have, however, explained it to signify the bone at the ex-
tremity of the spine, or even the μές, while Jerome
imagined that the swollen legs of the old man were meant.
Hitzig, Bottcher, and Graetz, with a critical nose degenerat-
ing (to use Delitzsch’s strong expression) into a hog’s snout,
have sought to interpret it of the phallus” Delitzsch trans-
lates the sentence, “the locust crawls along,” or is “with
difficulty dragged along,” the hithpael, Dano’, being regarded
here almost as equivalent to a passive. Comp. chap. viii.
το. The allusion is supposed to be to the loss of elasticity
in the hips, and their inability to bear any weight. In
this interpretation Delitzsch substantially adopts the view
of the Talmud, regarding the locust as being the coxa, the
hips, or the back part of the pelvis, in which the muscles
used in rising and walking are concentrated. Delitzsch
thinks that this part of the body is so termed because its
mechanism is somewhat similar to that in the locust. But
this interpretation appears to us too artificial We can
scarcely conceive that a poet would choose under such an
image to depict the stiffness felt by old men in the morning,
which they attempt to remedy when getting out of bed, or
when rising from a seat, by putting their hands behind their
backs, and thus pushing themselves forward.

The verb used in this sentence can only mean to drag.
oneself along, or to crawl along, or to load oneself with some-
thing. It is doubtful whether it can convey the sense of

1 The Talmud however explains the /ocust to mean MYA, wales ; the cognate
word to this in Arabic signifies the os coccyy’s, or the bone at the extremity of the
spine; while the Midrash explains it by ‘‘é/ese ave his joints” Οὗ. aby),
Targ. > 2 “MADN, the ancles of thy ject, The Targum makes use of the word
PPD 7P in Lev. air 21 to denote the joints above the fect of the locusts, used by
them in springing from the ground.

? See note on p. 263.

Strange interpretation of Dean Plumptre. 261

4

“being a burden to another,” or of becoming troublesome, or
dull. The ancient translators have indeed taken the word in
the sense of being burdensome, not to others, but zo oneself.
Under the influence of the allegorical exposition (which was
adopted in very early times) the LX X.,, Vulg. and Syr. deduced
from this signification the meaning of becoming fat. Tyler
seems to coincide with this view. It was only going a step
further to explain the locust itself, rapacious as is its appetite,
to signify the stomach.

Some commentators have maintained that the locust is
referred to as a favourite kind of food. They consider the

sense of the passage to be that all such luxuries are no longer

attractive, cither by reason of the terror inspired by the
gathering storm (Gzxsburg), or by the failure of appetite in
old age. But the locust, though occasionally eaten in Pales-
tine, is not regarded there (as in Arabia) as an agreeable
kind of food.! Zéckler considers that the locust is mentioned
simply on account of its littleness (comp. Isa. xl. 22; Num.
xiii. 33), and that the aphorism is equivalent to “the gnat
becomes a burden, or the fly,” or, as the Germans say, “a
fly on the wall annoys him.” Professor Tayler Lewis has
defended the popular exposition of the phrase found in our
English version, “the grasshopper shall be a burden,” as if
it meant to describe the old man as so feeble that he
cannot bear the smallest weight. So Wardlaw. One would
have thought such an interpretation unlikely to find favour
with critics; but it has actually been adopted by Dean
Plumptre, who observes, “that which is least weighty is a
burden to the timidity of age. Assuming the writer to have
come in contact with the forms of Greek life, the words

1 An interesting story told by Palgrave of the relish which the Arabs exhibit for
this food is given by Prof. E. Percival Wright, M.D., in his popular work on Ani-
mal Life, being a series of descriptions of the various sub-kingdoms of the Animal
Kingdom, Pp. 493+

WwW

62 Anecdote from the Talmud.

may receive an illustration from its being the common prac-
tice of the Athenians to wear a golden grasshopper in their
heads as the symbol of their being autochthones, * sprung
from the 5011. Such an ornament is to the old man more
than he cares to carry, and becomes another symbol of his
incapacity to support the least physical or mental burden.”
We may safely predict that such an explanation will in time
find its proper place in a museum of. curiosities of Biblical
exposition.

We must here pass over Ewald’s interpretation of the
clause. But the following anecdote, cited in the Talmud
(Shabbath 151", 152°) in connexion with its interpretation,
presents the allegorical exposition in the most favourable
aspect, and hence deserves quotation. An anccdote some-
what similar is given in the Midrash. “The Emperor asked
Rabbi Joshua ben Iananyah, How is it that you do not go
to the house of Abidan ({V2N8 12) δ a place where learned
discussions and disputations on religious questions were wont
to be held. “He said to him (in reply), The mountain is
snow (my head is white); the hoar frosts surround me (my
whiskers and beard are also hoary); its dogs do not bark (I
have lost my wonted power of voice); its millers do not grind
(I have no teeth); the scholars ask me, whether I am looking
for something which I have not lost?” referring, probably, to
the old man feeling here and there, on account of his short-
ness of sight, as if looking for something.!

We are not unmindful of the fact that this clause has been
ingeniously explained by Taylor to refer to the chirping of
the grasshopper, or the song of the τέττιξ, which was much
admired by the ancients. The passage alludes, indeed, to
the time of spring when the τέττιξ gives forth its notes. But,

ray Sys ΤᾺΝ ad mms xd pm ΜΌΣΠ 12. perm sand api Ses
NIN ON 2Ὶ 3 am Nd Mw prar xo mass pda rand abn
ΤΣ NITVAN

The use of the caperberry. 263

as no mention is made in Biblical literature of the chirping
of the locust, or the grasshopper, as a sound admired by the
Hebrews ; and moreover, as the conjugation of the verb
presents a difficulty in the way of this interpretation, we
regard it as more than doubtful.

The allegory passes on, according to Delitzsch, in the next
clause to describe the dying out of the sensitive desires and
the decay of the organs which minister to these wants.
Koheleth speaks of the caperberry as no longer able to
excite the sluggish appetite. It is certain from the render-
ings of the LXX., the Syr., and the Vulg.,, that TI"AN is che
caperberry, whose flower-buds and berries were used as a
relish in ancient as well as in modern times. The caperberry
was also used as an aphrodisiac in the middle ages, but no
conclusive evidence has been adduced that the ancients em-
ployed it for that purpose.! MVAN in the Talmud denotes

Pliny, though he says much about the capparis (Nat. Hist. xiii. 44, and xx. 55)
and describes its medical properties, does not mention this use of it. Gesenius
and Hitzig refer to Plutarch (Symp. vi.; Quast. 2), but, though it is there spoken
of as a provocative to appetite, the other use is not mentioned. His words are
πολλοὶ τῶν ἀποσίτων ἐλαίαν ἁλμάδα λαμβάνοντες, ἢ κάππαριν γευσάμενοι ταχέως
ἀνέλαβον, καὶ παρεστήσαντο τὴν ὄρεξιν. The Talmud renders the word here by
MOON, desire, the Midrash by another synonyme (seen. 3, p. 264). The Targum,
both according to Walton’s text and that of Lagarde, has ἘΞ, which Ginsburg
renders by vest, Winzer better by ¢adernaculum. The word does not occur in the
former signification, and in the latter is not suitable here. Delitzsch quotes the
Targum according to the reading of the Antwerp Polyglott, SI3W%. Béttcher
(Aehrenl. pp. 98, 99) regards all three words (almond, locust, and caperberry) as
having concealed references to the sexual organs. This is the view of several old
Jewish commentators, and of Graetz, who refers to the use of the word for caer

ς
in Arabic. But the Arabic pe the caper, is used of several aromatic plants

(see Lane’s Arad. Lex.), and there is not the slightest necessity for supposing such
allusions. Koheleth was, as Delitzsch well observes, no Martial or Juvenal to de-
light in such references. On the rapidity of growth of the caper, see the anecdote
from the Talmud given on p. 23. The word used for the plant in that passage is
aby. There does not appear to be any authority for the statement made by
Buxtorf that ΠΝ ΣΝ occurs in the meaning of olive-berries, although that transla-
tion is adopted by Taylor. The latter scholar explains, however, that he has used
the word o/ive in his translation merely because it is ‘‘a more familiar poetical
symbol.”

264 The use of the caperberry.

caperberrics. The translation, “desire shall fail,” given in
our A.V., on the authority of the Jewish lexicographers, and
defended by Knobel and others among the moderns, is con-
demned by Delitzsch as “impossible,” on the ground that the
form of the word would be “unexampled and incomprehen-
sible.’? 4

‘The verb which occurs in this sentence* is used elsewhere
in.the sense of breaking, bursting, and also with reference to
the making a covenant invalid, and the declaring of a vow
null and void. Koheleth employs it here in the sense of
becoming void, becoming fruitless, or ineffective. This is in
accordance with the usage whereby that which is viewed by
the Shemitic people as an act, is regarded by Europeans as
a state. If the context admitted of the meaning, the clause
might be translated, “ and the caperberry bursts,” in allusion
to the bursting of the ripe caperberries, from which that
plant receives, according to Wetzstein, its Syro-Arabic proper
name, i.e. naw, the burster,a term which for a similar reason
is also applied to over-ripe dates.$ Ewald translates the
clause literally, “and the caper bursts.” He explains it
however, allegorically. According to his view, the soul,
which in the former clause is compared to a locust beginning

1 That is, the feminine form cannot denote desire in the abstract, but must refer
to something which has, or arouses, desire.
295M, the imperfect hiphil from V5, fo dreak. The hiphil is also used in the
same sense. Gesenius in his 7/es. describes the hiphil as here intransitive. But
see Konig’s Zehrgeb., § 27, and compare W. Wright's Arad. Gramm., vol. i. § 45,
rem. c, Some have proposed to read here 12M), the hophal.
8 Hence the translation of the LX. καὶ Ἃς ἡ κάππαρις. The Syriac
ὃ τ ΟΥ̓ ΨΥ na
gives a double rendering |Zo1ms5 Apolo «fas 3.5776-*and
the caperberry shall burst, and want shall cease.” The translation of Symmachus,
καὶ -διαλυθῇ ἡ ἐπίπονος, has much exercised the ingenuity of scholars. Dr. Abr.
Geiger, in his able article on Sywmachus der Uebersétzer der Bibel, in his Fiidische
Zeitschrift, vol. i. (1862) p. 57, prefers the reading ΩΣ ἐπιγονή, which he explains as

identical with the exposition of the Midrash, D'S 2 ody noon mena ἋΣ
ined, but Field, in his edition of Origen’s Lexapla, has clearly shown that

The going about of the mourners. 265

to fly, is here likened to the caperberry which has burst its
capsule.

But it is far more probable that Koheleth speaks here of
the caperberry as powerless any longer to excite the appetite
of the dying man. The idea of Hitzig, that the poet refers
to the uselessness of the caperberry as an aphrodisiac in
extreme old age, must be unhesitatingly rejected. For, even
if the Jews were acquainted with that use of the plant, the
writer would not naturally have referred to it, unless he were
giving a picture of the last days of a miserable sensualist.
This is certainly not the theme of Koheleth’s verse, or some
reference would have been made in the poem to the sensual-
ist’s former habits of life. But, as Renan truly observes, the
Book of Ecclesiastes is never immoral or obscene, its author
was “not a professor of libertinism.” !

We have already spoken of the name here (verse 5) given
to the grave, namely man’s “eternal house” (see p. 201).
The mourners have been explained often as the relations
of the deceased man, but the verb in the passage (72.20) is
more suitably applied to the going up and down, or the going
in. procession, of the hired mourners. who were wont to
accompany the rich to their graves, often moving onward
with funereal music, singing dirges for the dead. Classical
scholars will naturally think of those “gaz conduct? plorant in
Junere” (ovat. Ars Poet, 431). The Targum regards the
this is impossible. Symmachus has probably taken the Hebrew word in the
sense of ‘‘miserable,” and the word ἕυή may be understood after ἡ ἐπίπονος, or
the reference may be, as Delitzsch thinks, to the spirit of man. The word, as
Field observes, is found nowhere else in the Greek versions except in a fragment
of Symmachus on Isaiah liii. 3, where he renders ‘‘a man of sorrows and

acquainted with grief,” by ἀνὴρ ἐπίπονος καὶ γνωστὸς νόσῳ. On the caperberry see
αν on p. 263.

1 « C’est un livre de scepticisme élégant ; on peut le trouver hardi, libre méme ;
jamais il n’est immoral ni obscéne. L’auteur est un galant homme, non un
professeur de libertinage, et c’est ce qu’il serait vraiment si la fin du livre renfer-
mait les étranges sous-entendus admis par M. Graetz.”—Renan, ΖΦ λα sur
LV Ecclisiaste, p. 72.

266 The snapping of the silver cord,

DYIDID, the mourners, as the persons who go about here and
there to gather information concerning the life of the de-
ceased man, to be worked up for the funereal dirge, and
thinks at the same time, that, while those on earth are busied
about such matters, the angels are also going about to in-
vestigate on their part the deeds done in life by the de-
parted,

The sixth verse presents some difficulties which, however,
do not affect much the interpretation.! Almost all com-
mentators agree in assigning to the verb, however it may
be read, the signification of breaking. The allegorists have
explained the silver cord variously as the spine, the spinal
cord, the nerves, or the vital powers in general. Delitzsch
interprets it to mean the soul, which like a cord holds up the
body (the lamp); the spirit, according to his notion, being the
oil contained therein.

It is impossible to discuss here with any fulness these or
other interpretations. Our view is that Koheleth, who (as
we shall shortly point out) in the first five verses pourtrays
death as slowly but surely advancing in old age, in the sixth

1 The text must be read either kal, ΡΠ", or niphal, "ΠῚ. As there is a k’ri,
the vowels attached to the consonants of the word in the text belong to that in the
margin. IM signifies ¢o go away from, or to be far off from, so the clause with
the imperfect kal may be rendered, as Zéckler, ‘‘before that the silver cord gives
way.” ‘The Greecus Venetus translates the verb as.aniphal, μακρυνθῇ, probably
thinking of the cord being stretched out until it finally snaps asunder. Winzer
renders the niphal ‘‘ before that the silver cord be removed,” while Knobel
regards the niphal as used in the same sense as Zéckler has rendered the kal.
Delitzsch prefers the reading of the margin, which is ΡΠ), though he confesses it
is not without its difficulties. That verb in kal signifies to dvd together, to chain, and
is used of the binding of prisoners (Nah. iii. 10), The Targum explains the clause
to refer to the tongue, and paraphrases “‘ ere thy tongue is lamed so that it cannot
speak.” Rashi and Ibn Ezra consider the idea το θὲ rather that of contracting,
The notion of Kimchi and others that the niphal ought to be regarded as a nega-
tive of kal, and that the verb signifies in kal ¢o é¢d, and in niphal zo Zoose, is in
violation of the laws of the language. The ancient translators have all, more or
less explicitly, given the verb the sense of dreaking. ‘There is no necessity what-
ever to alter the text, and to read 13. with Pfannkuche, Gesenius, and Ewald,
or, by transposing the consonants, to read with Hitzig, PIM}.

and the breaking of the golden lamp. 267

verse speaks of it as coming suddenly, with little or no
warning. The idea of the golden bowl (753) or. reservoir for
oil seems to be borrowed from the fifth of Zechariah’s visions.
In that vision Zechariah beheld a candlestick of gold, similar
in most respects to that of the Mosaic tabernacle, with, how-
ever, some remarkable differences. No ministering priests
were there to supply its lamps with oil, but its oil flowed
directly from two olive-trees which stood on either side of
the candlestick and discharged their oil through two golden
channels into a common reservoir, or bowl (a 72), from which
by means of pipes it was conveyed to each of the seven lamps.!
The oil that fed the lamps of Zechariah’s candlestick was
in Koheleth’s mind a fit emblem of the spirit, which, as
Delitzsch rightly notes, is termed (in Prov. xx. 27) a lamp of
God. The lamp in Koheleth’s picture is, however, supposed
to hang from the top of a tent, or from the ceiling of a house,
suspended by a silver cord. The oil (not mentioned by Ko-
heleth, but the pouring out of which is necessarily implied in
the picture) is thought of as contained in the golden bowl.
But suddenly the silver cord snaps asunder, the golden lamp
falls, the precious oil is poured out like water, and the light
which once shone in the dwelling is cxtinguished.?

The fact that a vessel of gold cannot be shivered in pieces
need create no difficulty, for the writer may have thought of
some merely gilded lamp. Moreover the verb is also used of
things which may be “crushed in,” and not actually broken
in pieces. Comp. Y987 13), @ bruised reed, in Isaiah xlii. 3.

The next picture under which the sudden death of man

1 See my Bampton Lectures on Zechariah and his Prophecies, p. 81 ff.

2 The conjecture of Taylor that nba is nearly synonymous with byoy is surely
unnecessary. He argues that ΩΣ in some passages might mean ro//er and then
124 might mean a reel ; and hence he translates the two clauses, ‘‘ Ere the silver
thread escape, and the golden reel hasten,” 2.6. spin round rapidly when the
wheel is released from the strain put upon it. But conjectures of this kind are to
be avoided except in cases where the passage will otherwise afford no good sense.

268 The shivering of the pitcher.

is pourtrayed is that of a pitcher shivered at the fountain,}
so that in the breaking thereof there is not found “a sherd
to take fire from the hearth or to take water withal out of
the pit.” (Isa. xxx. 14), The noun (73) is used both of a
pitcher and a bucket, but it is evident that the first is its
real meaning here. ;

The third image presented by Koheleth is that of a wheel
suspended over a well for the purpose of lightening the
operation of drawing up water from the depths below. An
ancient expositor cited in the Midrash makes mention of
the wheel whereby the water was drawn up from the deep
well at Sepporis. The well of Sychar will at once suggest
itself to one’s mind. The word in the original (b353) is to be
taken in its ordinary meaning of a wheel. There is no ne-
cessity whatever for seeking to assign to it the signification
of bucket. The last word in the verse may be explained to
be either a well artificially constructed, or a cistern. Death
is thus likened by Koheleth to the sudden breaking down
of the wheel during the process of drawing water, whereby
bucket, rope, wheel and all, are precipitated into the well.

The chd of man, however, is not like that of the beast. If
the dust returns to its kindred dust, the spirit of the dying
man goes not downwards (chap. iii. 21) but upwards. This
reference back to the passage in the'former part of the work
proves that the writer does not teach the absolute cessation
of man’s existence, In that case there would be no difference
between man and the beast; the comparison of the two pas-
sages shows that the writer believed in the existence of a
real difference. The paraphrase of the Targum is, as Delitzsch
notes, in full accordance with the teaching of the book, “thy

© The word (¥1312) is used in the signification of fountain or spring in the two
other passages where it occurs (Isaiah xlix. 10; xxxv. 7), Taylor thinks there is

some propriety in the use of by over the ΜῈ), Our A.V. renders simply ‘ at,”
“at the fountain,”

Concluding sketch of the passage. 269

spirit will return to stand in judgment before God who gave
it to thee.” And, as that expositor says, in this connexion of
thought Koheleth expresses more than. Lucretius (ii. 998 ff.)

“Cedit item retro, de terra quod fuit ante,
In terras, et quod missum est ex etheris oris
Id rursum cceli rellatum templa receptant.”

A comforting thought lies, as Delitzsch goes on to ob-
serve, in the words “who gave it.” What God gives He
repents not of having given (Rom. xi. 29). If He takes
back any gift, He takes it back in order to restore it again
more glorious than before.

It now remains for us to give a brief sketch of what we
think to be the true interpretation of the entire passage.

In the verses with which he concludes his remarkable book,
Koheleth depicts man’s days of sorrow.in contrast with the
joyous days of boyhood and early manhood. Such days
form part of that sore trial which God hath given to man to
be exercised therewith. In contrast with the days of youth,
our poet describes first the gradual waning away of life in
old age; and then, in a few rapid touches, that sudden death
which carries off many ere they have arrived at the utmost
span allotted to mortals here below.

‘The first seven verses of chap. xii. may be regarded as a
description of the evil days of man. Considered as a whole
they naturally fall into seven short sections or stanzas of
unequal length, not however exactly corresponding with the
seven verses of the Masoretic text. Three of the sections
begin with the phrase “ere” (ND WN TW), and one is dis-
tinguished by commencing with “zz the day when” (Ww Da).
Two others are sufficiently marked out by 1 (aud, or shen,
etc.), followed by the imperfect jussive, which form proves
that the clauses with which it commences are conditional,
and that we must supply either the “eve” which occurs in
the first verse, and whose force is felt from the beginning to

270 = Peculiarities of the Palestinian winter.

the end, or the alternative expression “in the day when,”
made use of in verse 3. In the fifth and remaining section,
which, as we maintain, consists of verse 5 (with the omission
of the opening clause) the imperfect indicative is found ; but
it is plain from the context that this also is to be regarded
as forming in itself a complete stanza.

The imagery employed in the first five verses is drawn
from the closing days of the Palestinian winter. The seven
last days of that season (though viewed as the heralds of the
approaching spring), are peculiarly dreaded in Palestine as
fraught with death to persons advanced in years. The
following facts noticed by Consul Dr. J. G. Wetzstein! as to
certain striking peculiarities of that season cast considerable
light upon the poetry of Koheleth.

In Europe the autumnal season is the period of the year
which is most dangerous for the old. But it is very different
in Palestine. The months of October, November, and part
of December are mild and pleasant, and the rain which occa-
sionally falls imparts new life to the vegetation scorched by
the summer sun. In the end of December the weather
begins to be unpleasant, and the Palestinian winter with its
piercing cold, accompanied by frequent storms of rain and
snow sets in in January, and continues until late in February.
There are, however, in February occasional intervals of more
genial weather. But in the latter days of that month an after
winter occurs with undeviating regularity. It lasts generally
for seven days, during which the cold is bitterly felt, especially
as it always comes after warm weather. These seven days
are noted as dangerous to the aged, and are styled in the

s

native almanacks the foal cul, the days of the ofd woman.

1 See the valuable Z.xcurse which are to be found in the German edition of
Delitzsch’s Commentar tiber das Hoheslied u. Koheleth, vt not in the English
translation. I deeply regret that this valuable work is so marred and misrepre-
sented in the English version. See note on p. 119.

The seven “days of death.” 271

The legends connected with this name are given by Wetz-
stein and Lane.! The appellation is a very ancient one,
and (as founded upon popular experience) may have been
well-known in the days of Koheleth. But, whether the special
appellation be as old as his time or not, Koheleth, as a
native of Palestine, must have been well acquainted with
these seven “days of death.”

In his description of the evil days of man, Ioheleth
derives much of the imagery he employs from the features
which characterise this deadly week. With that partiality
for the number seven, which the sacred writers often exhibit,

1 Wetzstein notes that these days are noted in the native almanacks, “ the
scale of the times” (Deregat el-aukat), He observes that the locusts crawl out
in Syria in the early days of spring, and that the native almanacks mention this
fact. On the signification of the term applied to these days, he quotes a native
Arabic rhyme, in which February is represented as speaking to March, “ O
March, dear cousin, the old women are mocking at me. Three [days] of thine
and four of mine, And we will bring the old people to singing [another tune,]”
The old women mock at February on account of its mild weather, for so many
fine days occur in that month that old women, who are susceptible of the least
cold, are represented as treating the month as devoid of danger. Hence February
asks the loan of a few days from March, in order to put an end to the merriment
of the old. With respect to the one month borrowing days from another, it may
be worth noting that the idea is found even in sayings current in the north of Ire-
land, where it is said that March having undertaken with its cold winds to ‘skin
a cow,” was compelled to borrow three days from April in order to accomplish
the task completely ; and hence the first three days:of April are called in many
parts by the name of *‘the borrowing days.” The legend given by Beidawi, and
quoted by Lane in his Arabic English Lexicon, book i. p. 1961, is that during
the seven days before alluded to the people of the tribe of ’Ad in Arabia perished,
according to the tradition of the Koran (Sur. lxix. 7), by a scorching wind which
prevailed seven days and eight nights, and the days are so called as being in the

latter part (x52) of winter; or from an old woman 6) γ 2.5. 55} ‘of ’Ad who concealed
herself in a subterranean excavation, from which the wind dragged her forth on
the eighth day and destroyed her. Another legend given by Wetzstein, from
Tha‘alibt (a.H. 400), is that the old woman who gave the name to these days
wished to marry again, and to prove that she was strong enough, determined
at the advice of her seven sons to sleep out seven bad nights in the open air,
on the seventh of which she died. The days in question are called also the

συς-

-ΦΞ
\ all, the days of the cutting off, the unluck days, or the deadly days of
peel ph ᾿ »
the old. See Wetzstein, and Lane, p. 569.

572 The seven stanzas of Noheleth.

Koheleth (probably in allusion to the seven days of death
of the Palestinian after-winter), divides his verses into seven
stanzas, all of which more or less distinctly savour of decay
and death,

The first stanza alludes briefly to those days of evil where-
in man exclaims, “I have no pleasure ;” a marked character-
istic of the season referred to. The second stanza depicts
the darkening of the atmosphere, the pouring rain, and the
return of storm and rain after the clouds seemed to have
passed away. The gloom of life increases, and man feels he
is wending his way towards the place whence he will not
return (Job xvi. 22). In the third stanza the picture drawn
is still more vivid. It describes the effects of the bitter
weather upon all. The men-servants: tremble; the men of
power, their masters, also bow themselves together. For
death is beginning to cast its dark shadow over the high
and the low alike, and the limbs both of the noble and
peasant tremble when they feel the touch of that “king of
terrors.”

But these “days of evil” affect also “the weaker sex.”
The grinding maids cease for a time from their task of
grinding corn, either “because,” their fellow-companions
being prostrated with sickness, “they are but few”; or
“when they have worked but little,” for the sickness common
to the season has weakened their bodily frames. The ladies,
too, who were wont to gaze out at the lattices are darkened.
Like the Nazarites, or princes, described in the Book of
Lamentations, once brighter than snow and whiter in ap-
pearance than milk, but whose countenances by reason of
terrible sorrow had become darker than blackness itself—so
the faces of these gazers at the lattice-windows are now
darkened, as they too have to look inté the face of death.
Hence the doors are shut towards the’street, and the sound of
the mill ceases. The voice of mirth is gone, and the voice of

Death in life and life in death. 255

gladness, the sound of the millstones, and the light of the
lamp (Jer. xxv. 10). The ordinary occupations of man and
woman are at an end. Every house is shut up, all joy is
gone, “as with the slave, so with his master, as with the
maid, so with her mistress " (Isa. xxiv. 2, 10).

The fourth stanza begins in the middle of verse 4, where
the jussive form shows that the phrase“in the day when”
is to be supplied. In it Koheleth describes the passing
away of the severe season and the advent of spring. The
after-winter has done its work, and the old men and women
are now dying. Nature has its spring, but there is no spring
for the aged. There is hope for the tree, as Job says, but
man dieth and wastcth away, he lieth down and riseth not
(Job xiv. 7, 10, 12), At the approach of spring, when those
yet in the vigour of manhood rise early at the glorious
concert of birds, with whose melody the humbled daughters
of song cannot compete, the aged sick in their chambers
are beset with all sorts of fears from above and below.
Tennyson almost expounds the words of Koheleth when he
says:

“ Ah sad and strange, as in dark summer dawns
The earliest pipe of half-awakened birds
To dying ears, when unto dying eyes
The casement slowly grows a glimmering square ;
So sad, so strange the days that are no more.”—
The Princess.

The writer presents two pictures, the one death in life, the
other nature re-awakening from its temporary grave. The
almond-tree is in blossom, and the locusts are crawling out, as
they are wont to do at this season, coming forth from the holes
in which they were hatched, and just beginning to prepare for
their destructive flights. But in yon chamber the old man
is lying, and even the caperberry cannot arouse his failing
appetite. The food lies untouched, for the man is going to

T

37} Koheleth’s last warning.

his eternal home; and lo! the mourners, ready to be hired to
escort him to his last earthly resting-place, are going to and
fro in the street not far off from the house of death.

But remember thy Creator, young man, cries Koheleth,
in the days of thy youth, for death may advance upon thee
unawares. The silver cord that suspends from the ceiling
that shining lamp with its golden bowl may suddenly snap ;
the pitcher often borne before to the spring for water may
fall and be shivered into pieces in the very place from whence
the refreshing draught was so often procured; the wheel set
up with care to draw up from the depths of earth the cool
waters may suddenly give way and fall itself into the well.
Therefore remember thy God, and prepare while here to
meet Him, “ before that the dust shall return upon the earth,
dust as it was; for the spirit shall then return to the God
who gave it.

We close with a translation of the whole passage.

Rejoice, young man, in thy youth,

And let thy heart cheer thee in the days of thy youth,

And walk in the ways of thy heart

And according to the sight of thine eyes !

But know—that for all these God shall bring thee into the judgment.

Thercfore banish moroseness from thy heart,
And put away evil from thy flesh,
For boyhood and manhood are vanity—
And remember thy Creator in the days of thy youth,

(1)
Ere there come the days of evil, and years approach
In which thou shalt say, I have no pleasure!

(2)
Ere the sun is darkened, and the light, and the moon, and the stars,
And the clouds return after the pouring rain.

(3)

In the day when the keepers of the house tremble,
And the men of strength bow-themselves-together—

Koheleth’s last warning. 873

And the grinding-maids cease because they are few,

And the ladies that look out at the lattices are darkened !
And doors are shut towards the street,

When the sound of the grinding-mill ceases.

(4)
When one rises at the voice of the bird
And all the daughters of song are humbled !
Even they fear from on high, and all-sorts-of-terrors are in the path,

(5)
Then there blossoms the almond,
And crawls out the locust ;
But unavailing is the caperhgrry—
For the man is going to his eternal house,
And there go the mourners about in the street !

(6)
Ere the silver cord be snapped asunder,
And the golden bowl break—
And the pitcher be shivered upon the spring,
And the wheel be broken (and fall) into the well ;

(7)
And eve the dust return upon the earth as it was;
For the spirit shall return to the God who gave it.

THE BOOK OF KOHELETH.

A NEW TRANSLATION, ARRANGED IN SECTIONS,
WITH A CRITICAL AND GRAMMATICAL
COMMENTARY.

277

PRELIMINARY NOTE ON THE TITLE
KOHELETH.

It is unnecessary to give any extended notice of the various inter-
pretations proposed for the name Koheleth, as such will be found
in the commentaries of Knobel and Ginsburg. See, however, our re-
marks on pp. 84 ff. The word is the active participle fem. which has

two forms nbyip (in pause mdwip) and nop, often found together in

the same verb, as 72¥° and navy’, Chap. vii. 27 is often referred
to in proof of the name having been given to Solomon as the
personification of wisdom, since the noun is there construed with a
feminine verb. But the ordinary reading of that passage is con-
sidered by Olshausen, Bottcher and Delitzsch to be ἃ blunder.
Had the author desired to pourtray Solomon in such a character,
he would hardly (as Delitzsch rightly argues) have made him
speak as in chap. 1, 16-18, and vii. 23 ff Moreover, the language
of chap. vii. 27 is not that of wisdom personified. One would
have expected in that passage some stress to have been laid upon
the masculine gender of the speaker. Several explanations of the
noun, such as “the penitent one” (Cocceius), “the congregation,
academy ” (Bauer, Déderlein, Nachtigal, ete), “old man” (Simonts,
Moldenhauer), have been long since abandoned.

The word is of the same formation as the following proper names
of men, viz. NJBD Sophereth, “scribe,” Neh. vii. 57, and NID Pokereth,
in. the compound name D287 0722 “she hunter of gazelles,’ Ezra
ii, 57, where our A. V. has incorrectly “Pochereth of Zebaim.”
Bottcher considers such fem. participal forms to be feminine abstract
nouns used as titles of honour, like the titles Majesty, Excellency,
Highness, Grace, which in German and other kindred languages are
feminines (Majestat, Excellenz, Hoheit, etc., Zehrd.,§ 645). But
the feminine appears to be used in such cases, as in Arabic, to
intensify the meaning (see W. Wright’s Avad. Gramm., 2nd edit.
vol. i. p. 157, and p. 203. Comp. Ges.-Kautzsch, ὃ τοῦ, 3.¢). The

279

280 Note on the title Koheleth.

feminine is often found in Hebrew in a neuter signification. Nouns
of the form of the fem. part. active were originally regarded as neu-
ters, and then applied to persons as possessors in a high degree of
the particular quality specified by the verb. Hence such names
occur with the article. So NWP in Ezra il. 55; the article is not
expressed in our A.V. ‘he article too before the second word in
the compound name 0°3¥7 32 renders the first definite according
to the well-known Hebrew idiom. The use, however, of proper nouns
of this form to denote men is rare, and secms to belong to a late
stage of the language, for such forms do not occur in early Hebrew.
As an example of the same form as a fem. proper name we may
cite nab used with the article, x Chron. vii. 18, and 7223, used
similarly with the article, 1 Chron. iv. 8. But the limited extent
of the induction does not permit such a statement to be made with
any degree of certainty. The observations of Rev. D. Johnston in
his Treatise on the Authorship of Ecclesiastes are beside the question,
and exhibit a strange misunderstanding of the point of Delitzsch’s
remarks, which he attempts to controvert. To the names Sophereth
and Pochereth mentioned by Delitzsch, Johnston adds ‘‘and Mis-
pereth in Neh. vii. 7,” a name not quoted by that scholar, and not of
the same grammatical form as the others. Feminine nouns of other
forms are, indeed, made use of in early Hebrew as proper names —
(Olshausen, Zehr2., p. 224), but the use of the fem. of the part. active
as ‘such constitutes the special peculiarity in the name Koheleth.
Delitzsch observes that the language of the Mishna not only: uses
the feminine of participles active as proper names of men, but even
makes use of the fem. of the part. pass. in an active signification
in place of the proper active part., and moreover employs plurals
of. the form of the fem. part. pass. (ΠΡ) Ὁ) in a masc. signification.
He cites as instances MINI “those who tread the wine-press,”
Terumoth iii. 4, MiNwW2N, “the reapers,” Erub. iv. 11. These sub-
jects are construed with masculine predicates. See, for similar
instances, Geiger, Lehrb, sur Sprache der Mischnah, § 16, 6, p. 44.
Hebrew feminine forms, like 0980, M735 and nbnp, applied to men,
correspond exactly both in grammatical form and signification with the

ee Pee
Arabic nouns dys) γα hander-down of traditions, a traditionary ;

- 5. *
ἃ, ο] an emissary, ΟΥ̓ missionary ; ἃ 3h a deep investigator. See

Note on the title Koheleth. 281

W. Wright’s Arad. Gram., vol. i. § 233, rem. δ, p. 157. Delitzsch
considers Koheleth to be an official title of a preacher. So the
Assyr. has the fem. plural form 4azanaéé in place of the Hebrew
DN, In Ethiopic, masculine nouns which signify an office, busi-
ness, or profession, take in the plural a feminine termination. See

Dillman, Gramm, der Aithiop, Spr., § 133. The verb DMP is only used
in the sense of collecting together persons, and not in reference to
things, and the nouns, like PAR, derived from that stem, are used in
a similar signification, the noun nbnp is not therefore to be taken in
the sense of a collector of proverbs, or one who gathers wisdom, or of
one who seeks to combine various opinions. The LXX. render it by
ἐκκλησιαστής, Aquila κωλέθ, not συναθροιστής (as Knobel has erro-
neously stated) as Rédiger (in Gesenius’ Zhes.), and Field (in Origen.
ex.) have pointed out. Symmachus is said to have rendered the
word by παροιμιαστής in chap. xii, το, but the reading given there
as that of Symmachus was probably taken from Aquila’s version of
the preceding verse. See Field zz /oco. The Gr. Ven. has rendered
it by ἡ ἐκκλησιάστρια in chap. i. 1, 2; vii. 27, and in chap. xii. 8;
but by ἡ ἐκκλησιάζουσα in both chap. xii. g and το. Vulg, ecclestastes.
Jerome notes: “ ἐκκλησιαστής greeco sermone appellatur qui ccetum
ze. ecclesiam congregat: quem nos nuncupare possumus concio-
natorem, eo quod loquatur ad populum et ejus sermo non specialiter
ad unum, sed ad universos generaliter dirigatur.” Kleinert regards the

word as a denominative from ὅπῃ an assembly, congregation, like WA a
shepherd from i232, cattle, and considers it to signify δημαγωγός, one
who speaks to the people, a preacher, in contrast to the 133 who
represents the congregation before God. The feminine ending he
explains not as denoting an office, but as indicating the wisdom
personified in the sayings of Solomon (Lwald, Hitsig, Hengstenberg).
He refers in proof to chap. vil. 27, and to the predicates used in
chap. xii. 8 ff. Similarly Hoelemann, save that he regards the fem.
as indicating the personified voice of the preacher (referring to John
i. 23). We prefer, however, Delitzschis explanation.

In an article on Renan’s work on Ecclesiastes, Dr. Paulus Cassel,
in the No. of Swnem for May 19th, 1882, referring to Renan’s
remarks on the letters of Koheleth (see p. 127), draws attention to
the fact that the numerical value of the letters in nbnp is 5355

while the value of 1927 717 $2 moby is 536. He thinks that the

282 The Jewish Division of the Book.

comparison is interesting. It would be so if the numbers corre-
sponded exactly, but in this case one might use the English proverb,
‘*a miss is as good as a mile.”

THE JEWISH DIVISION OF THE BOOK.

The Masora divides the Book of Koheléth into four sections, or
DD, containing in all 222 verses. The mnemonic word which
contains this number is 733 (3, 20+, 2+, 200= 222) in the phrase
tow 897) 729 ΠΥ ΠΕ ΠΟ, chap. vi. ro, which is the middle of the book.
The first two sections are of equal length, each containing 57 verses,
the first embracing chap. i. 1—chap. iii. 13, the second chap. iii. 14
to chap. vi. 12. The conclusion of chap. vi. is the logical end of a
section, but so much cannot be said in reference to the artificial break
at chap. ill. 13. The third section, which contains 52 verses, ends at
chap. ix. 6; and the fourth, containing 56 verses, runs on to the end
of the book. These divisions have been made without respect to
the logical connexion of thought presented in the work, and afford
little or no help in any attempt to arrange the book into its compo-
nent parts.

§

1.

2

3
4

IG

THE BOOK OF KOHELETH,
A NEW TRANSLATION.

1. The absolute vanity of everything earthly. Earthly
phenomena like a circle with no veal progress.

1 The words of Koheleth, son of David, king in Jeru-
salem.

Vanity of vanities, saith Koheleth, the whole is vanity.

What profit is there to man in all his toil (in) which
he toileth under the sun? <A generation is going, and a
generation coming, and the earth is abiding for ever [26,
continually]. And the sun rises, and the sun sets, and
even (when going) to its place, longing it is to arise there !

Going towards the south, and circling towards the
north, the wind is going, circling, circling ; and the wind
is (ever) returning to its circlings.

All the streams are going to the sea, and the sea—
it is not full ; to the place whither the streams are going,
there they are again going.

All things have become weary, no man can express it;
the eye will not be satisfied with seeing, and the car will
not be filled with hearing,

That which hath been is that which shall be ; and that
which hath been done is that which shall be done; and

there is nothing new under the sun. Is there a thing of
283

284 Koheleth's first and second discovery, (Ch. i. 10-ii. 2.

II

12
13

14

1

16

17:

18:

which one says, “See this is new!” it was already for
ages which were before us. There is no remembrance
of those (persons who lived) in former times, and even of
those in after times who shall come into being, there will
be no remembrance of them with those who shall be in
the after time.

δ. 2, Koheleth’s first discovery.—The vanity of wisdom.

I Koheleth have been king over Israel in Jerusalem.
And I gave my heart to search into and to seek out
by wisdom with regard to all that is done under the sun;
it is a woful exercise which God has given to the sons of
men wherewith to exercise themselves. I have seen all
the works which are done under the sun, and behold!
the whole is vanity and a striving after wind.

“The crooked cannot be straightened,

And a deficit cannot be counted in” [ze. counted as a

part of the whole].

I spake [communed] with my heart, saying, Behold I
have become great, and have gathered wisdom, above all
(the rulers) who were before me over Jerusalem, and my
(own) heart has seen abundantly wisdom and knowledge.
And therefore I have given my heart to know wisdom,
and to know madness and folly. I perceived that even
this was a striving after wind. For in much wisdom
is much sorrow, and he who increases knowledge in-
creases pain.

§ 3. Koheleth’s second discovery.—The vanity of pleasure and

Il.

4

riches,

t I said in my heart, Come now, I will test thee by joy,
therefore enjoy [lit. see] good! And behold! even this
was vanity. To Laughter I said, It is mad; and to Joy,

Ch. ἢ, 3-12.) The end of the wise man and the fool. 285

3 What doeth it? I searched out [lit. spied out] in my heart
(how) to attract my flesh with wine, while my heart was act-
ing [guiding] with wisdom, and to take hold of folly, until
that I should see what might be good for the sons of men,
which they should do under the sun during the number of

4 the days of their life. I undertook great works; I built

5 for myself houses, I planted for myself vineyards. I made
for myself gardens and parks ; and I planted in them trees

6 of all sorts of fruit. I made for myself pools [tanks] of
water ; in order to water by them a wood sprouting out

7 (with) trees. I procured servants and maidens, and
T had also “sons of the house” [slaves born in my house];
also herds, oxen and sheep in abundance belonged to me:

8 above all those who were before me in Jerusalem. I
gathered for myself even silver and gold, and the peculiar
treasure of kings, and of the countries; I got for myself
singing-men and singing-women, and the delights of the

9 sons of men, a wife and wives. And I became great, and
I increased above all who were before me in Jerusalem :

IO moreover my wisdom remained with me. And all that
which my eyes asked, I did not keep back from them ;
I did not deny my heart any joy, for my heart had joy
from all my toil, and this was my portion from all my
toil.

11 And I turned towards [ze, turned to contemplate] all
my works which my hands had made, and towards my toil
with which I toiled to make them; and behold! all was
vanity and striving after wind, and there was no advantage
under the sun.

§ 4. Koheleth’s third discovery—(a) The vanity of wisdom,
since the end of the wise man and the fool is alike.

12 And I turned to behold wisdom; and madness, and
folly, for what is the man, who shall come after the king,

286 Riches acquired by toil are vanity. (Ch. ii. 13-23.

13,

14

15

16

17:

18

ao

21

22

him whom they made (king) long ago! And I saw that
there is an advantage to wisdom over folly, like the
advantage of the light over the darkness. As regards
the wise man, his eyes are in his head ; and (as for) the
fool, he walks in darkness.

And I perceived, even I, that one chance happens to
them all. And I said in my heart, As the chance of
the fool, even to me will it happen; and for what (end)
have I then been exceedingly wise? So I spake in my
heart, that this also is vanity.

For there is no remembrance of the wise man more
than of the fool for ever. In the days which are coming
[it will be said by and by], “The whole (of them) are long
ago forgotten!” and how dieth the wise man like the
fool !

Therefore I hated life, for evil to me [ze in my eyes],
was the work which was done under the sun, for the
whole is vanity and striving after wind.

(ὁ) Riches though obtained by much tou are vanity.

And I hated all my toil with which I was toiling under
the sun, because that I shall leave it, (even) to the man
who shall be after me. And who knows whether he
shall be a wise man or a fool? And he shall rule over
all my toil for which I have toiled, and in which I have
wisely acted, under the sun. Even this is vanity. And I
turned round to give my heart up to despair, concerning
all the toil with which I had toiled under the sun. For
there is a man whose work is (performed) with wisdom,
and with knowledge, and with success; and to a man
who has not toiled therein must he give it as his portion.
Even this is vanity and a great evil. For what is to be
the result to the man in all his toil, and in the striving of

Ch. ii, 23-ii1.6.] Cheerful engoyment—Catalogue of “times.” 287

23

24

25
26

his heart, wherewith he is toiling under the sun. For all
his days are pains, and trouble is his occupation, even by
night his heart does not rest. Even this is vanity itself.

(c) The conditions necessary for cheerful enjoyment.

There is nothing better among men than that one
should eat and drink and that his soul should see good
in his toil. Even this have I seen, that it is from the
hand of God. For who can eat. and who can enjoy
himself without Him? For to a man who is good in
His sight Ile has given wisdom and knowledge and
joy; but to the sinner the exercise to gather, and to
collect together, in order to give it to one who is good
before God. Even this is vanity and a striving after
wind,

δ 5. The shortsightedness and powerlessness of men before

IIL.

God, the Disposer and Arranger of all things.

1 To everything there is a season, and a time for every
purpose under the heavens.
A time to have children [or, to be born], and a time
to die.
A time to plant, and a time to root up what is planted,
A time to kill, and a time to heal,
A time to break down, and a time to build up.
A time to weep, and a time to laugh,
A time to mourn, and a time to dance.
A time to throw stones (over the fields), and a time
to gather up the stones,
A time to embrace, and a time to draw off from em-
bracing.
A time to seek, and a time to lose,
A time to guard, and a time to throw away.

283 Alen left to themselves like the beasts, (Ch. iii. 7-18.

9
10

II

Ls

16

17

18

A time to rend, and a time to sew,

A time to be silent, and a time to speak.

A time to love, and a time to hate.

A time of war, and a time of peace.

What profit has he who is acting in that with which
he is toiling. I have seen the exercise which God has
given to the sons of man in order that they may exercise
themselves with it, The whole of this [or, Everything]
He hath made beautiful in its season, even Eternity hath
He put into their heart, so that man cannot find out
from the beginning to the end the work which God hath
made.

I perceived that there is nothing good among them
[men], except to be glad, and to do good in one’s [lit. his]
life. But also that every man should eat and drink, and
see good in all his toil, it is a gift of God. I perceived
that everything which God doeth, it shall be for ever, to
it it is not (possible) to add, and from it it is not (pos-
sible) to take away ; and God has made it so that they
may fear before Him. That which has been, long ago
it is (in existence), and that which is to be, long ago it
has been, and God seeks after that which has been driven
away [2.6. the past].

ὁ 6. The unrighteous actions of men when left to themselves.
Men compared to the beasts that perish,

And again I saw under the sun the place of judgment,
(that) iniquity was there; and the place of righteous-
ness, (that) iniquity was there. I said in my heart: the
righteous and the wicked shall God judge ; for there is a
_time for every purpose, and for every work THERE. I said
in my heart, it happens according to the manner of the
sons of men, in order that God may test them, and in

Ch.

19

21

22

iii, 18-iv.6.] The msery common to nian. 289

order that they may see that they are beasts, they with
respect to themselves. For a chance are the children
of men, and a chance is the beast, and the same [lit. one]
chance happeneth to them: like the death of the one, so is
the death of the other; and one breath is to all; and a
superiority of the man over the beast there is not; for all
is vanity. All are going to one place, all were from the
dust, and all are returning to the dust. Who knoweth
with regard to the spirit of the sons of men whether it
ascendeth upwards, and with regard to the spirit of the
beast whether it descendeth downwards to the earth?

So I saw that there was nothing better than that man
should rejoice in his works, for that is his portion. For
who can bring him to see that which shall be after
him.

8 7. The misery common to man—(a) The oppression af man

IV,

eat

by his fellow.

1 And again I saw all the oppressions which were done
under the sun, and behold! the tear of the oppressed,
and they had no comforter; and from the hand of those
who are oppressing them (proceedeth) violence, and they
have no comforter! And I praised the dead which
were dead long ago, more than the living who are living
still. And better than both of them is he who does
not yet exist, who has not seen the evil work which is
done under the sun.

(2) The rivalry and useless toil of man.

And I saw all the toil, and all the superiority of work,
that it is the rivalry of man over his fellow—even this
is vanity, and a striving after wind. The fool foldeth
his hands together, and eateth his own flesh. Better is

U

2900 Solitary Ufe—Popular enthusiasm. (Ch. iv. 6-16.

the full of a hand with rest, than the full of two (closed)
hands with toil and striving after wind.

§ 8. The disadvantages of a man being alone by himself, and
the benefit of companionship.

7,8 And I saw again vanity under the sun. There is one
without a second, even son and brother he has not,
and there is no end to all his toil, even his eyes are
not satisfied with riches ;—And for whom am 1 toiling
and depriving my soul of good? Even this is vanity

9 and a woful exercise it is, The two are better than
the one, because they have a good reward in their toil.

10 For, if they fall, the one will lift up his companion ;
and woe to the one who falls, and there is not a second

11 to lift him up. Moreover, if two lie together, then they

12 are warm; but how can one be warm (alone)? And
if any make an attack on the one, the two will stand
up against him ; and the threefold cord will not quickly
be broken.

ὃ 9. The vanity of popular enthusiasm for a new monarch,

13 Better is a youth poor and wise than a king old and
foolish, who does not any longer understand how to be

14 warned. For out of the house of the prisoners goeth
he (the youth] forth to reign ; though even in his [the old

15 monarch’s] kingdom he was born poor. I have seen all
the living who walk under the sun on the side of the
youth, the second {person just mentioned], who stands up

16 in his [the old monarch’s] room. There is no end to all
the people, to all those at whose head he is, (But) truly
those who come after [the people of a younger generation]
shall not delight in him. For even this is vanity and a
striving after wind.

Ch. iv.17-v.10.] Vanity in Religion—vanity of riches. 291

§ 10. Vanity in Religion—Divine worship, and vows.

17 Keep thy foot when thou goest to the house of God,
for to draw near to hear is (better) than the fools offering
sacrifices; for they are ignorant [lit. do not know], so

v.tthat they do evil. Be not hasty with thy mouth, and
let not thy heart hasten to utter a word before God;
for God is in the heavens, and thou upon the earth,

2 therefore let thy words be few. For the dream cometh
by reason of much occupation; and the voice of a fool
in consequence of many words.

3. When thou vowest a vow to God, defer not to fulfil
it, for there is no delight in fools—that which thou

4 vowest fulfil. Better is it that thou dost not vow, than

5 that thou shouldest vow and not fulfil. Suffer not thy
mouth to cause thy flesh [thyself] to sin, and say not
before the angel [the priest] that it was an error; where-
fore should God be angry on account of thy voice, and

6 destroy the work of thy hands? For in the multitude
of dreams are also vanities, and (in) many words (as
well) ; but fear God.

§ 11. The vanity of riches (a) in a state under despotic rule;
(0) riches are little advantage in themselves, and (ὦ are
gathered for others.

7 If thou seest oppression of the poor and robbery of
judgment and righteousness in the province, be not
surprised at the matter; for there is a high one over a

8 high one watching, and higher persons over them. And
an advantage of a land in all respects it is (to have) a
king devoted to the field [“e. agriculture].

9 He who loveth silver shall not be satisfied with silver,
and he who loveth riches has no fruit (of them). Even

10 this is vanity. When the property increaseth, those that

292 Vanity of riches. (Ch. v. 10-vi. 2.

ΖΓ

16

17,

18

19

consume it increase also; and what advantage pertains to
its possessor except the seeing of his eyes? Sweet is the
sleep of the husbandman, whether he eats little or much ;
but the abundance of the rich, it does not allow him
to sleep.

There is a sore evil I have seen under the sun, riches
preserved by the owner thereof to his misfortune. And
these riches perish through bad circumstances ; and he has
begotten a son, and there is nothing in his hand. As he
came out of his mother’s womb, naked shall he return
again, just as he came; and nothing shall he take by his
toil that he can bring with him in hishand. And even this
is a sore evil, that in all respects as he came, so he must
go; and what profit has he that he toils for the wind ?
Even all his days he eateth in darkness, and has vexed
himself much, and (oh!) his sickness and anger! Behold
what I have seen good, which is beautiful, (namely,) to
eat and to drink, and to see good in all his toil with
which he toils under the sun, during the number of the
days of his life which God has given him; for this is
his portion. Also for every man to whom God hath
given riches and treasures, and hath given him rule over
it in order to eat of it, and to take his portion, and to
rejoice in his toil; this (indeed) is a gift of God. For he
does not think much about the days of his life, for God
answers in [z.e, corresponds with] the joy of his heart.

§ 12. The ultimatum—the vanity of possessing riches without

VIL

2

enjoying them.

1 There is an evil which I have séen under the sun, and
it is great upon man: A man to whom God gives riches,
wealth, and honour, and he denies himself nothing of all
that he desires ; but God does not give him the power to

Ch. vi. 2-12.] /Lumean powerlessness against destiny. 293

eat thereof,—for a man, a stranger, eateth thereof—This
3 is vanity and an evil discase. If a man begets a hundred
(children), and live many years; yea, however numerous
may be the days of his years, if his soul be not satisfied
with that which is good, and he has also no burial—I say,
4 better than he is the untimely birth. For it came into
nothingness, and it goes into the darkness, and with the
5 darkness shall its name be covered. Even the sun it saw
not, and knew not—the rest (that falleth) to the one is
6 more than (that which falleth to) the other. And [the
same thing is true even] if he lived a thousand years
twice (told), and did not see good. (For) are not all going
to one place?

§ 13. The insatiability of desire.
7 All the toil of man is for his mouth, and even the soul
8 is not filled. For what advantage hath the wise man
above the fool? What (has even) the poor man who
9 knoweth how to walk before the living? Better is the
sight of [ze. that which is seen by] the eyes, than the
wandering to and fro of a soul. Even this is vanity and
striving after wind.

§ 14. Human powerlessness and shortsightedness with respect
to destiny.

to. ©6©That which has been, long ago has its name been
pronounced, and known is that which a man shall become;
and he cannot contend with Him who is stronger than

11 he. For there are many words which increase vanity ;

12 what profit (are they) to man? For who knoweth what is
good for man in life, during the number of the days of
the life of his vanity, for he spends them as the shadow ?
For who can point out to man what shall be after him
under the sun?

294 = Patience and wisdom in adversity, [Cb. vii. 1-14

§ 15. Proverbs concerning things to be preferred by man.

VII. 1 Better isa name than good [16. perfumed] oil, and the

Ὁ

m

day of death than the day of one’s birth. Better is it
to go to a house of mourning than to go to a house of
feasting ; because that is the end of every man, and the

; living will lay it to his heart. Better is sorrow than

laughter, for through the sadness of the face the heart

-is made better. The heart of wise men is in a house

of mourning, and the heart of fools in a house of mirth.
Better is it to hear a reproof of a wise man, than that
a man should be hearing a song of fools. Tor, like the
noise of the nettles under the kettle, so is the laughter of
the fool. Even this is vanity.

§ 16. Patience and wisdom the best preservatives in the time

7

8

9

10

Il

13

13

14

of oppression and adversity.

Because oppression maddeneth a. wise man, and a gift
[a bribe] destroycth [breaketh] (his) heart, better is the end
of a matter than its beginning ; better he who is patient
in spirit than he who is haughty in spirit. Be not hasty
in thy spirit to be angry, for anger rests in the bosom of
fools. Say not, How is it that the former days were
better than these? for not with wisdom dost thou ask
after this. Wisdom is good along, with an inheritance,
and an advantage to those who behold the sun. For in
a shade [shelter] is wisdom, in a shade [shelter] is money,
yet an advantage of knowledge is that wisdom gives life
to those who possess her. Consider the work of God ;
for who can make that straight which He hath made
crooked? In a day of prosperity be in good spirits ;
and in a day of adversity consider that even God hath
made this [the evil day] as well as that [the day of pros-
perity], in order that man may find out nothing of that
(which shall come) after him.

Ch. vii. 15-27.] The middle mean—The terrible snare. 295

§ 17. Lhe importance of keeping “the middle mean,” and the
practical advantages of wisdom.

15 All (sorts of things) have I seen in the days of my
vanity. There isa righteous man perishing in (spite of)
his righteousness, and there is a wicked man prolonging

16 (his life) in (spite of) his evil-doing. Be not righteous to
excess, and do not show thyself too wise; why wilt thou

17 ruin thyself? Be not wicked to excess, and be not a

18 fool; why wilt thou die before thy time? Good (is it)
that thou shouldest lay hold on this [proverb] ; and also
from that withdraw not thy hand; for he who feareth God
fulfilleth [or, shall come out of] them all.

19 Wisdom proves stronger to the wise man than ten

20 rulers which are in the city. For a.man there is not (so)

21 righteous on earth who doeth good and sinneth not. Also
give not thy heart [thy attention] to all the words which
they say, that thou hear not (about) thy servant cursing

22 thee. For many times even, thy heart knoweth, even thou
hast cursed others.

23 +All this have I proved by wisdom; I said: Wise will

24 I become, but it was far from me. Far [from man's
comprehension] is that which is, and decp, deep, who can
discover it.

§ 18. The suave by which men are generally caught. The
wicked woman.

25 I turned myself (to another matter); and my heart was
to know and to spy out, and to seek wisdom and (know-
ledge based on) reckoning ; and to know wickedness (to

26: be) folly, and foolishness (to be) madness. And I find
more bitter than death the woman who is snares, and a
net [lit. nets] is her heart, fetters are her hands—he who
is good before God shall be saved from her; but a sinner

27 shall be caught by her. Sce, this have I found, saith the

296 isdom in days of oppression. [Ch.vii.27-viii.10.

Koheleth, adding one to one to find cut the reckoning,
28 what still my soul hath sought, and I have not found,
one man out of a thousand I have found, but a woman
29 among all those I have not found. Only, this see! I have
found: that God made man upright, but they have
sought out many devices [lit. reckonings].

δ΄ 19. The benefit of wisdom in days f oppression.— The wise
man will be obedient and patient, knowing that there ts a
God who judgeth the earth.

vill. 1 Who is as the wise man? and who understands the
explanation of a thing? The wisdom of a man causes
his face to shine, and the coarseness.of his face is changed.

2 I (say), observe the command of a king, even on account

3 of the oath of God. Hasten not to go away from him,
stand not in an evil affair ; for all that he desires he will

4 do. For aword of aking is powerful, and who can say
to him, What doest thou (there) ?

5 He who observeth (his) commandment shall experience

no evil thing ; and time and judgment knowcth the heart

6 of a wise man. For to every purpose there is a time and
judgment ; for the wickedness of man is heavy upon him ;
for there is no one who knoweth that which shall be ; for,

7 how it shall be, who can tell to him? There is no man
who has power over the wind so as to restrain the wind ;

8 and there is no ruler in the day. of death; and there
is no discharge in the war; and wickedness does not
deliver its masters.

9 All this have I seen, even by applying my heart to all
the work that is done under the sun, at a time when

10 man ruleth over man to his hurt [ἀ of the latter]. And
thus [under such circumstances] have I seen wicked men
buricd ; and they came (into being); and from the place

Ch.

Il

12

13

14

viii, 10-17.] There ts a God who judgeth all. 297

of the holy they went (to their graves) ; and they are for-
gotten in the very city where they acted thus (wickedly).
Even this is vanity.

Because sentence against the work of wickedness is not
executed speedily, therefore the heart of the sons of men
within them is full [has full courage] to do evil: because
a sinner commits evil a hundred times, and prolongeth (his
days) for it; although indeed I know that it shall be well
for those that fear God, who fear before him: and well it
shall not be for the wicked, and he shall not prolong his
days, (he shall be) like the shadow, because he feareth
not before God.

There is a vanity which is done upon the earth, (namely)
that there are righteous men to whom it happeneth accord-
ing to the work of the wicked ; and there are wicked men
to whom it happeneth according to the work of the
righteous. I said, that this indeed is vanity.

And I commended joy [cheerfulness], because there
is nothing better for man under the sun than to eat, and

to drink, and to enjoy himself; and that this should

accompany him in his work during the days of his life,
which God hath given to him under the sun.

ᾧ 20. Man knows not the work of God, but ts in all things

16

17

conditioned by a higher power than his own, which permits :
the same things to happen to all men alike.

As I gave my heart to know wisdom, and to see into
the business which is done upon the earth, for even
by day or by night, there is no seeing sleep in his
[man’s] eyes,—then have I seen all the work of God,
that man is not able to find out the work: which is done
under the sun; because that man labours to seek it, and
does not find it; and even if the wise man says that he
knows it, it is not to be found out.

298 The duty of cheerfulness in life. (Ch. ix 1-9.

IX.

bo

1 For all this I have laid to my heart, and I strove [lit.
I have been about] to test [prove] all this: that the
righteous and the wise and their actions are in the hand
of God; even love or hatred man knoweth not, all lies

- before them. All (is) like that which (is) to all, one fate

[chance] happens to the righteous and to the wicked, to
the good, and to the clean and to the unclean, both to the
man who sacrificeth and to him who sacrificeth not ; as is
the good (man) so is the sinner, the man who sweareth is
as he who fears an oath.

8 21. The fate that awaits all, the state of the dead. Men

3

ought therefore to enjoy life, while working for their daily
bread. The uncertainties of life, and the certainty of death
mm an unexpected time.

This is an evil in all that is done under the sun; that
one fate [chance] happens to all, and also that the heart of
the sons of men is full of evil, and madness is in their hearts
during their lives, and after it [ze. their life]—to the dead !
For he who is joined to all the living [ze to all living
beings] has hope, for even a living dog is better than the
lion which is dead. For the living know that they shall
die; but as for the dead, they know nothing, and they
have no more a reward, for their memory is forgotten.
Even their love, yea their hatred, and their rivalry, long
ago has perished ; and they have no portion more for
ever in all that which is done under the sun,

Go, eat with gladness thy bread, and drink with good
heart thy wine; for, long ago, God hath approved of thy
doings [in this matter]. At every time let thy garments
be white, and let oil upon thy head not be wanting.
Enjoy life with a wife whom thou lovest all the days of
the life of thy vanity, which God hath given to thee under

Ch.ix.g-x.1.] The certainty of death —the use of wisdom. 299

the sun; all the days of thy vanity, for this is thy portion
in life, and in thy toil, wherein thou toilest under the sun.

10 ΑΙ] that thy hand may find to do with thy strength,
do; for there is no work, nor reckoning, nor knowledge,
nor wisdom in Sheol, whither thou art going!

11 Icame back even to see under the sun that the race
belongs not to the swift, nor the battle to the heroes, nor
even bread to the wise, nor even riches to the prudent,
nor even favour to the knowing; for time and chance

12 befall all of them. For indeed man knoweth not his time ;
like the fishes which are caught in an evil net, and like
the birds which are caught in the trap ;—like these are
the sons of men ensnared in a time of evil, like that
which [or, when it] falls upon them suddenly.

§ 22. The poor wise man, and the benefits of wisdom.

13 Even this have I seen as wisdom under the sun, and it
14 was great in my estimation; a little city, and men in
it but few, and there came to it a great king, and encom-

15 passed it, and built against it great intrenchments ; and
found in it a poor wise man, and he [the latter] delivered
the city through his wisdom, and not a man remembered
that same poor man.

16 Then said I, Better is wisdom than strength ; but the
wisdom of the poor is despised, and his words are not
heard.

17 Words of wise men (uttered) in quiet are heard, better

18 than the shout of a ruler among fools. Better is wisdom
than weapons of war; and one sinner destroyeth much
good,

§ 22 The usefulness of wisdom and the danger of folly, shown
by various proverbs.

X. I Poisonous flies make the oil of the perfumer to stink

300 The necessity of foresight—the fool's talk, [Ch. x. 1-15.

1)

10

II

12
13

14

15

and ferment; heavier than wisdom, than honour, is a
little folly. The heart of a wise man (inclines) towards
his right, and the heart of a fool towards his left; and
even on the road, as [or, when] the fool is going along,
his heart [understanding] fails him, and he says to all that
he is a fool.

If the spirit of the ruler rise against thee, leave not
thy post; for patience puts an end to great transgres-
sions.

There is an evil which I have seen under the sun, like
an oversight which proceedeth from the ruler. Folly is
placed on great heights, and rich men sit in lowliness.
I have seen slaves upon horses, and princes walking like
slaves upon the earth.

He who digs a pit may fall into-it, and he who breaks
down a wall a serpent may bite him. He who heweth
out stones may be hurt by them ; he who cutteth down
trees may be endangered by them.

If the iron has become blunt, and he has not whetted
the face (of it), then must he put forth strength; a
superiority in setting right (has) wisdom.

If the serpent bites before enchantment, then there is
no use for the master of the tongue [z.e. the snake-charmer].

§ 24. The fool noted for his useless talk and aimless tott.

The words of a wise man’s mouth are grace, but the
lips of a fool swallow up himself. The beginning of the
words of his mouth is folly, and the end of his mouth
wicked madness. And the fool multiplieth words,
(although) man knows not that which shall be, and that
which shall be after him [1.6. after his death], who can
narrate to him? Fools-work [ze foolish philosophizing]
wearies him who does not know (even) how to go to the
city.

Ch.

x. 16-xi. 6.] The foolish king—Wisdom of beneficence. 301

ὃ 25. The misery of a land cursed with a foolish king, and the

necessity of prudence tn the subjects of such a monarch.

x. 16 Woe to thee, O Land, whose king is a child, and whose

1"

18

20

princes eat inthe morning! O thy happiness, O Land!
whose king is a son of nobles; and thy princes eat at
the (right) time in strength, and not in drunkenness.
Through great indolence the beam-work sinks, and by
laziness of hands the house leaks. For merriment they:
make feasts [lit. bread], and wine gladdens life, and
money grants all (they desire).

Even in thy consciousness, curse not a king, nor in thy
bed-chambers curse a rich man; for the fowl of the
heaven shall carry the voice, and the possessor [lit. master]
of wings [the winged birds] shall tell the word [or, ex-
pression].

ὃ 26. The wisdom of beneficence. The future belongs to God,

XI.

2

but man ought to labour and enjoy life while he can.

1 Cast thy bread upon the surface of the waters, for in
the (course of) many days thou shalt find it. Give a
portion to seven, yea even to eight, for thou knowest not
what evil shall be upon the earth. If the clouds are
full of heavy showers, they will empty themselves upon
the earth; and if a tree falleth in the north or in the
south, in the place where the tree falleth, there it will
be [or, let it be]. He who observeth the wind shall not
sow, and he who looketh at the clouds shall not reap.

As thou knowest not which is the way of the wind, like
the bones in the womb of her who is with child, even so
knowest thou not the work of God who maketh all. In
the morning sow thy seed, and until evening slack not
thou thy hand, for thou knowest not whether this shall

302 The Song of Koheleth. — (Ch. xi. 6-xii. 4.

prosper, either this or that, or if both together shall be
good.
7 And sweet is the light, and good for the eyes it is to
8 see the sun. For, if the man lives many years, let him
rejoice in them all, and Ict him remember the days of
darkness, for they shall be many. All that which is
coming is vanity,

δ 27. The Song of Koheleth. The Days of Life, and the
Days of Death.

9. Rejoice, young man, in thy youth,
And let thy heart cheer thee in the days of thy youth,
And walk in the ways of thy heart,
And according to the sight of thine.eyes!
But know—that for all these God shall bring thee into
the judgment.
10 Therefore banish moroseness from thy heart,
And put away evil from thy flesh,
For boyhood and manhood are vanity ;

xu. 1 And remember thy Creator in the days of thy youth :

ERE there come the days of evil, and years approach,
Of which thou shalt say, “1 have no pleasure in them!”

2 ERE the sun is darkened, and the light, and the moon,
and the stars,
And the clouds return after the pouring rain.

3 IN THE DAY WHEN the keepers of the house tremble,
And the men of strength bow-themselves-together,
And the grinding-maids cease because they are few,
And the (ladies) that look out at the lattices are darkened !
4 And doors are shut towards the street,
When the sound of the grinding-mill ceases,

Ch.

10

II

12

xii. 4-12.) The Epilogue of the Book. 303

WHEN one rises at the voice of the. bird,
And all the daughters of song are humbled,
Even they fear from on high, and all-sorts-of-terrors
are in the path.

Then there blossoms the almond tree,
And crawls forth the locust ;
But unavailing is the caperberry—
For the man is going to his eternal house ;
And there go the mourners about in the street!

ERE the silver cord be snapped asunder,

And the golden bowl break—

And the pitcher be shivered upon the spring,
And the wheel be broken (and fall) into the well ;

And ERE the dust return upon the earth as it was;
For the spirit shall return to the God who gave it.

ὃ 28. The Epilogue.

Vanity of vanities, saith the Koheleth [Solomon], the
whole is vanity.

And, moreover (note), that Koheleth [the writer] was a
wise man ; further, he taught the people knowledge, and
pondered-over [lit. weighed], and investigated, [yea] ar-
ranged many proverbs. Kohcleth sought to discover
words of pleasantness, and what was written in upright-
ness, words of truth.

Words of wise men are like the goads; and like nails
firmly-driven-in are the masters of [2.6. persons well versed
in] “collections” (of such sayings). . They [the “collec-
tions ”] are given from One Shepherd.

And, moreover (note) more than that: my son, be

304 The Epilogue of the Book. (Ch. xii. 12-14.

warned, of making many books there is no end, and much
study is a weariness of flesh.
13. The end of the matter when all is heard is, Fear God
and keep His commandments, for this ought every man to
14 do, For God shall bring every work into a judgment,
(which shall pass) upon all that is concealed, whether good
or whether evil.

CRITICAL AND GRAMMATICAL
COMMENTARY.

-- --ς.--

CHAPTER I.

τ. “The words of Koheleth, son of David, king in Jerusalem.”
The greater distinctive zakeph is placed in the Hebrew over David,
to point out that the words following are in apposition to Koheleth,
and not to David. The smaller distinctive (pashta) over 37 is
necessary, for zakeph-katon, as a general rule, requires to be accom-
panied by its minor. PD is rendered definite by the following
ΡΥ, The expression is peculiar. On the name Koheleth, see
prelim. note on p. 287 ff. One would have expected, “ king of Israel
in Jerusalem,” or, as in the 12th verse, “king over Israel in Jeru-
salem.” Comp. 2 Kings xiv. 23. See remarks on p. 88 ff.

a, pan ὅπ. The full phrase occurs three times, twice in this
verse and once in chap. xii. 8. The concluding words ban ban
are, however, to be found also in verse 14, in chap. iii. 19, and in
xi. 8, in a modified form, ban xaw 53. The expression is used ina
superlative sense. Compare the phrases “heaven of heavens,”
1 Kings viii. 27; “servant of servants,” Gen. ix. 25 ; “ ornament of
ornaments,” Ezek, xvi. 7; ‘‘song of songs,” Cant. i. τ. Compare
o20U) MY) ΒΡ, Hos. x. 15. It is to be regarded as an accusative
of exclamation; not as a nominative, as if a kind of predicate,
LXX., Vulg., etc., and by Rosenmiiller among the moderns, “ vanis-
sima inquit Concionator, vanissima sunt omnia.” The form of the
construct ban is peculiar. It 15: best explained with Delitzsch after
Ewald, § 32 ὦ, as an Aramaising form like, 72¥, D2¥, pst. Zockler
compares pay in Ps, xxxv. 14, but that word is not a segholate, nor

305 xX

306 The Book of Koheleth. [Ch. i. 2, 3.

are the instances cited by Olshausen, § 154 @, in which the original
vowel reappears between the second and third stem letters. See
Kalisch, § xxvii. 2 3, Jerome seems to have read 30 from his
remarks ‘tin Hebreo pro vanitate vanitatum ApaL ABALIM scriptum
est.” There is some uncertainty as to the translation of the other
Greek translators, for Jerome quotes their rendering as ἀτμὸς ἀτμίδων
Sive ἀτμῶν, while others give it as ἀτμὶς ἀτμίδων or ἀτμὸς ἀτμῶν. See
Field. In Heb. and Chald. 937 is used in the sense of breath or
vapour, or a slight breeze (Isa. lviil. 13), such as that which comes
from the mouth, and it is frequently used in a figurative sense for
vanity. The signification of mst assigned to it in some passages of
Koheleth (chap. vi. 4; viii. 14; xi. 8) is more than doubtful.

ὍΝ may be taken either as a past or a present, but the latter
signification is more suitable here.

1227, All is vanity. Some writers have considered the reference
here to be the wziverse, but Koheleth speaks only of the things done
under the sun, or of those matters which affect the earth and man.

As to the subject matter of the verse, suitable parallels are found
in Ps. xxxix. 5-7 ; xc. 3-10; cil. 25-28. Comp. also Gen. xlvii. 9.

3. WN AD, The word ji) occurs nine times in this book,
and in this only; viz. chap. i. 3; ii 11, 13 (bis); ili, 93 v. 8, 15;
vii 12; x. 10. But the shortened form 1! (comp, Olshausen,
§ 215 g) occurs as a proper name (/efhro) in Exod. iii. 1; xviii, 1,
5, 6, 9, 12, called also once 1D}, Exod. iv. 18. ὉΠ" might, however,

be.explained otherwise as an apocopated form of ἡ ἼΠ), like 72° from

Abe Hence it cannot be fairly asserted that the word is later
Hebrew. The Chald. and post-Biblical word for }10* is ΤΠ)", Syr.

Won It signifies that which remains over and above, gain, profit,
advantage, and, when construed with 119, as‘ in chap. ii. 13, pre-emin-
ence. In chap. iii. τὸ the noun ΠῚ), derived from the same stem,
occurs as a synonyme. LXX., literally, τίς περισσεία τῷ ἀνθρώπῳ.
The LXX, always so translate the word. Aq. and Symm. here τί
πλέον τῷ ἀνθρώπῳ. Symm., in chap. v. 15, translates it by περισσόν,
and in chap. x. 10 by προέχει. A primary: form ἢ) (comp. }'72!,
const, })73}, 153, const. 113, vid. Bottcher, LeAré., § 751 /) is un-
known, vid. note on verse 11, Delitzsch observes that Simson the
punctuator (Cod. 102 a, of Leipzig Univ, Lib.) blames those that
use 10) in a liturgical prayer for the Day of Atonement.

ch.i3,4) Critical and Grammatical Comm. 307

Kleinert translates Ne) N19, man has nothing abiding, a transla-
tion guoad sensum. Its peculiarity lies in the rendering of 12 by ποΐ,
a force which it seems to have in some few instances, as Job xxxi. 1 ;
Cant. viii. 4; 1 Kings xii. 16, when compared with 2 Sam. xx. 1.
See Ewald, § 325 ὁ. Ewald, however, does not assign that meaning
to 1 in this passage. Compare the negative ls in Arabic. The
negative meaning has arisen out of its interrogative sense. See
Ewald, Gram. Crit, Arab. Ling., § 698. Comp. Bottcher, Ζελγό.,
§ 532.

In all his work, “Hahn translates “ notwithstanding,” or “in spite
of all his work,” appealing to Isa. v. 25, where NN? 223 is rendered
“for all this.” But this is unnecessary.

oye, “Ὁ does not here denote the accusative of the manner, but
of the object (Delitzsch). The same expression recurs in chap. v. 17,

and a cognate expression boy dip, chap. ii. 19, 20.

Under the sun, See p. 142. This formula is frequently found in
Koheleth, and is peculiar to it, See verse 9, 14; chap. il. 11, 17,
18. 19, (20, 225 IN, 165 iv. ἀν 75 Vi 13; 785 Vi. a, 225 VI. 9, 5.5
ix. 6, 9, 11, 133; x. 5. Compare the phrases “ under heaven” and
“upon the earth.” The former occurs in verse 13; il. 3; ili. 1, and
is an expression often found elsewhere, as in Exod. xvii. 14; Deut.
vil. 23; 1X. τὰ; XXv. 19; xxIx. 20; 2 Kings xiv. 27, as well as in the
Chaldee verse in Jer. x. 11, and in Lam. iil. 66. The phrase occurs
also in Greek in Baruch ii 2; Luke xvii 24; Acts ii, 5; iv. 12;
Col. i. 22. The cognate expression “under the whole heaven” is
used in Deut. ii. 25; iv. 19, and several times in the Book of
Job (xxvill. 24; xxxvii. 3; xli tr). The phrase “apon the earth”
γι πον is found in chap. viii. 14, 16; xi. 2, and often elsewhere, as
in Gen. vill. 17. Compare the kindred expression ΠΟ ΝΠ by in Exod.
x. 6. See Deut. iv. 4 and 36.

4. ὑπ to go, to depart, hence to de, chap. v.15; Job x. 21; Ps,
xxxix. 14. On the subject matter of this verse comp. Sir. xiv. το.

NY, ἐς abiding, Comp. Ps. xix. το. The copula in this sentence
may intimate “ wzls¢.” The earth “remains standing as it is, with
its entire order and arrangement. He does not deny that there is
movement within, but it is movement in a circle which leads to
nothing” (ifzig). Delitzsch considers that this is not the meaning
of the verse, which is rather that the earth fulfils its destiny by re-

308 The Book of Koheteth. (Oho tian 8.

maining immovable. It is the only thing that remains unmoved
while generations go and come. ‘The thought, dwelt on by the
Psalmist, of the contrast between the unchangeableness of God and
the changeableness of all things earthly, is foreign to the object
which Koheleth had in view. Jerome thus comments on the pas-
sage : “ quid hac vanius vanitate quam terram manere, que hominum
causa facta est, et ipsum hominem, terree dominum, tam repente in
pulverem dissolvi.” It is unnecessary, with Zéckler, to suppose that
the writer is thinking of the earth as founded upon pillars, Ps. xxiv, 2;
civ. 5 ; Job xxxvili. 6. Graetz maintains that the earth here signifies
the inhabitants thereof, which still continue to exist, though one
generation succeeds another.

5. The LXX., Vulg., Targ., Luther, Herzfeld, Hitzig, Hahn, connect
xi wipe 5x) with the preceding, translating the clause substantially
as: “and hastens to tts place where it also:arises.” In this case the
relation 12'S is considered to be understood before DS! BS ABS,
signifying were. The LXX. translate |S’ by ἕλκει, Vulg. reverti-
tur. Jerome remarks: “pro eo autem, quod Vulgatam ed. sequentes
posuimus, ad locum suum ducit, in Hebreo habet soeph, quod
Aq. interpretabatur εἰσπνεῖ, id est aspira/; Symm. vero et Theod.
recurrit” The transl of Symm, and Theod. is generally given
as ἐπαναστρέφει, but Field (Org. Hex. in loco) points out that
Symm.’s rendering here, and even that of Aquila, is somewhat
doubtful. But the accentuation distinctly. connects 8%’ with the
second part of the sentence, as if “and the sun rises, and the
sun sets: and (going) fo its place [namely, the place of its
rising]; panting, rises (the Heb. has also here the participle) ἦς
there.” Ewald renders “and the sun arises, the sun goes down, and
thither back again where it arises panting.” But, as Delitzsch ob-
serves, the verb ANY does not signify panting from fatigue so much
as panting after something. ‘This is the meaning in which the word
occurs in Isaiah xlii. 1.4; Job vii. 2, and Ps. cxix. 131. The picture
drawn by Koheleth is not the same as that in Psalm xix. 6, where
the sun is represented as rising, rejoicing as a hero to run his race.
Delitzsch translates, ‘and the sun goes down, and to its place it
goes panting back in order to arise there.” ‘The place where the sun
goes is most naturally conceived as the place of its setting. Delitzsch
considers the idea of the passage to be, that the sun hurries back to
the place where it is again to arise, and must continue both day and

Chis.) Cretecal and Grammatical Conint. 309

night on its constant course, however wearied it may be. Kleinert
regards the two participles as expressing together one idea. So in
the rendering given above, “and (the sun goes) even to its place,
longing it is to arise there.” Somewhat similar is the rendering of
Ginsburg, ‘tand though it pantingly goeth to its place, it riseth
there.” Similarly Herzfeld, who notes that the Syr. likewise renders :

Ξ. 5

Wed Sot ad <r. The objection to this is that the Oy’
would naturally be regarded as connected with the preceding suffix
(3p2), Α similar construction with two participles occurs in 1 Sam,
xvi. 16, 1422 YT, one who understands playing. See Ges.-Kautzsch,
§ 142, 4, Kalisch,§ c. 2. On the meaning of }8*’ compare Habb. ii. 3,

where it is said of a vision yee NB) “and it pants for the end.”

Graetz, regarding all attempts to extract a satisfactory meaning
out of ἮΝ as vain, proposes to read AN 3. The meaning of the
clause would then be, “and to its place it returns, rising there again.”
There is, however, no necessity for this alteration, Clericus un-
suitably compares the panting horses of the sun, spoken of by Ovid
(Adetam, xxi, 418) and Virgil (Georg. 1. 250), but such an idea is
totally foreign to the Hebrew conception. Rosenmiiller more suita-
bly adduces Catulli Carm. v. 4 ff:—

“ Soles occidere et redire possunt ;
Nobis, cum semel occidit brevis lux,
Nox est perpetua una dormienda.”

Jerome observes: ‘Sol iste, qui in lucem mortalibus datus est,
interitum mundi ortu suo quotidie indicat et occasu. Qui postquam
ardentem rotam Oceano junxerit, incognitas nobis vias ad locum,
unde exierat, regreditur, expletoque noctu circulo rursum de thalamo
festinus erumpit.”

sia mit On the pronoun see Ewald, § 311 a. (1). The Book of
Koheleth is remarkable for the partiality which the writer exhibits
for the participle. See chap. i. 4, 6, 7; ii. 14, 19,213 lil. 20; iv. 5;
Vv. 7,95 Vi. 125 vill. 12, T4, 16; ix. 5, 10,16, 17, etc. The personal
pronoun is also frequently used with such participles, even when
there is no emphasis whatever to account for its use, as well as with
finite verbs. This use of the personal pronoun, and the fact that it
is placed after the word and participle, is indicative of a late stage of
the language, ‘28 ΝΜ), and f finéfehap. vii. 26, so here, MA MM,

310 The Book of Koheleth. [Ch. i. 5, 6

he rises. Verbal adjectives are also used by Koheleth with the
personal pronouns to express the present tense, as boy 8 7 weary
myself, chap. ii. 18 ; iv. 8; QD MAS, chap. ix. 9 ; Dy NIM, chap. ii. 22 ;
ill. 9. In all these cases the pronoun is preceded by the relative.
When a negative is required, the writer expresses such by ἰδ, to
which the personal pronoun is appended as a suffix, as LI B28, he
knows not, vill. 7 (so also with verbal adj:, chap, vi. 25 vill. 13);
DLT DIN, they know not, chap. iv. 17.

6. The first part of this verse is referred to the sun by the LXX.,
Targ., Syr., Vulg., and, among the moderns, by Gejer and Graetz,
But the verse division of the Hebrew is evidently correct. The writer
adduces the wind as a fresh example of motion which continually
repeats itself. The use of the participles adds life indeed to the
picture, but it gives at the same time the impression of weariness.
Wolfg. Menzel (in his Vaturkunde in christ. Geiste aufgefasst, i. 270)
considers that Dove’s law of the circuits of the winds is here alluded
to. We agree with Zockler in thinking otherwise, though not with
the reason he gives, namely, that the author in verse 4 depicts
the earth as standing unmoved. Hahn considers that the author
refers to the constant change between hot and cold winds, the cold
wind blowing from the north and going toward the south (comp. Job
XNXVil. 93 Sir. xliii, 20), and the warm wind coming up from the
south (Job xxxvil. 17; Luke xii. 55). He supposes these winds to
symbolise respectively prosperity and adversity in the life of man;
but the verse, however, does not suggest any. such symbolism.

In the fourth verse all the predicates are participles. In the first
part of the fifth verse two perfects occur, followed in the second
clause by two participles. In the fourth verse, 2%° in the last clause
is most probably the participle. So the Syriac regards it In such
verbs YY, the participle active is identical in form with the perfect.
The participle expresses habit and continuance more distinctly than
the perfect. It will be noted that the subjects in ver. 4 precede
the predicates in all three cases. In ver. 4 they follow, and similarly
in ver. 6.

The wind, according to Hitzig, is described as blowing from north
to south, the sun being spoken of in connexion with the two other
quarters of the heavens, namely the east and west. But the clause
that follows ‘‘circling, circling goes the wind,” proves that the

Ch. i.6,7.) Critical and Grammatical Comm. 311

winds were not conceived by the writer as blowing only from north
and south, but as blowing from all quarters of the heaven. The
repetition of the participle 3210 33D denotes the repetition of the
phenomena. See Ewald, § 313 @ Comp. Ges.-Kautzsch, ὃ 108, 4.
The sense is merely the same as that of 2920 3°20, round and round,
Ezek. xxxvii. 2. The comparison of the two passages led Jerome
to translate gyrans gyrando vadit spiritus.

mn aw Ὃ by), Knobel and Ewald translate, “returns upon its
circles,” ze. returns by the same paths again. But it is better to
construe °Y with the verb, after Delitzsch and Zockler, as in Prov.
xxvi. 11 (comp. Mal. iii. 24; Ps. xix. 7). So Hitzig ‘the wind
returns to its circlings,” 1.4. begins the same course over again, its
movements constantly repeating themselves anew.

ἧς pom) is ἃ general term which includes all streams. The state-
ment that all the streams flow into the sea is a general one. It does
not involve the error which the Targum has fallen into that the
ocean surrounds the earth like a ring, or that the rivers regain their
sources by subterranean channels (Ginsburg, after the Targ.), or that
the sea replenishes the fountains from which they flow (/étzig).
Nor is there necessarily any allusion to the fact, probably well-known
even in that day, that the water rises from the sea in vapours, and is
collected in rain-clouds (Job xxxvi. 27, 28) and thus replenishes the
streams and causes the rivers to flow on continously (Deditzsch).
This view is, however, preferable to the others. Koheleth’s instances
are selected from common experience, and would have lost much
of their force if any facts not generally known had been alluded

to. The phenomenon referred to is the same as that noted by
Aristophanes, Nubes, 1291 ff.

Strepsiades + καλῶς λέγεις.
τί δῆτα; τὴν θάλατταν ἔσθ᾽ ὅτι πλείονα
νυνὶ νομίζεις ἢ πρὸ τοῦ ;

Amyntias: Ma Δί, ἀλλ᾽ ἴσην,
οὐ γὰρ δίκαιον πλείον᾽ εἶναι.
Streps.: κᾷτα πῶς

a ν πο ΄ EBNBS 4
αὕτη μὲν, ὦ κακόδαιμον, οὐδὲν γίγνεται,
ἐπιρεόντων τῶν ποταμῶν, πλείων ; K.T.A.

bp 13°. On construction vid. n. on p. 5. Delitzsch observes

AT The Book of Koheleth. [Ch. i. 7, 8.

that 123°, Mishnaic 13°, has the reflexive pronoun, as in Exod. iil. 2;
Lev. xiii. 34, and elsewhere.

"τῷ Dippy, On the construct state before the relative compare
chap. xi. 3, and see Ges.-Kautzsch, § 116, 2; Gesenius, ZeArg., p.
679; Ewald, § 332 ¢; Kalisch, ὃ 877

The Ὀξ' in the second part of the verse is not to be combined with
the preceding relative and translated whence or from whence (as Symm.
ad’ ot, Vulg, wxde, Grotius, Umbreit, etc.), which would require
ΡΟ, The relative in descriptions of places often means by itself
in whith, 1.6. where, Gen. xxxix. 20, or 20 which, i.e. whither, Num.
xill, 27; 2 Kings xii, 2 (where our A.V. has incorrectly “ for”), but
never from which, or whence. But, as Delitzsch observes, Ot after
verbs of motion (¢g. after 24 in Jer. Xxil. 27, and after abn in
τ Sam. ix. 6) has frequently the signification of Πρ, Hence the
passage is “fo the place whither (Ὁ in '20%') the rivers are going,
thither (DY) they go again,” that is, they flow on ever again and
again into the all-devouring sea. In combination with another verb,
31 is often best rendered by the adverb “aga.” The verb quali-
fied is placed either in the same tense, and (1) connected with }, as
in 2 Kings 1, 13; or (2) without 1, as Gen. xxx. 31. Or, (3) as
here, followed by 4 with the inf., Hosea xi. 9; Job vii. 7, etc. The
use of the participle is intentional, as continuity is intended to be
expressed. See n. on verse 6. Compare Lucretius vi. 631-638 :—

“ Postremo quoniam raro cum corpore tellus
Est, et conjuncta est, aras maris undique cingens,
Debet, ut in mare de terris venit humor aquai,
In terras itidem manare ex aequoré salso ;
Percolatur enim virus, retroque remanat
Materies humoris, et ad caput amnibus omnis
Confluit ; unde super terras redit agmine dulci
Qua via secta semel liquido pede detulit undas.”

8, OD 71370752, The word 737, the plural of which is found
here, may either mean qword or ‘Aing. In the latter sense it is found
in the next verse, as also in chap. νἱ. “12; vii. 8; Josh. v. 4, εἴς,
The LXX., Syr., Targ., with many modern commentators, translate
it here by “words,” But the expression would be strange, if the
meaning sought to be conveyed is that given by Gesenius (in the

chi.) Cretical and Grammatical Comm. 313

Zhes.) “all words are wearied,” that is, the man would be wearied
who should endeavour to declare all these things in words. Equally
strange is it if the translations of Winer, Knobel, etc., be adopted,
“all words weary,” 1.6. render the ears of those weary who hear
them ; the adjective being regarded as active. Knobel, after Rosen-
miller, urges in defence of this rendering that words of a similar form
are often active in signification, as ??Y, ἃ workman, Judges vy. 26;
DPV, Ps. xlix. 6; WY Job xvi. το; OWN, Ezra x. 19. This explana-
tion is, apart from other considerations, scarcely consistent with the
close of the verse where the writer speaks of the ear, not as wearied,
but as never satisfied with hearing. Graetz renders ‘all things weary
themselves,” ze. in the same way as related, by ceaselessly going
the same rounds. Not dissimilarly Delitzsch, “all things weary
themselves,” 2.6. working with all their might and main, or, in other
words, “‘all things are in activity.” He compares the signification
of the noun 2°, work, dabour, used specially of hard toil (comp. the
verb in piel, chap. x. 15). The fem, noun 72 occurs in same sense
in chap. xii, 12. This is better than Rosenmiiller’s “ omnes res fati-
gantur h.e. in perpetua versantur vicissitudine qua fatigantur quasi.”
Ya signifies not causing weariness, but suffering from weariness. So
in Deut. xxv. 18; 2 Sam. xvii. 2, which are the only other passages
where the adjective occurs, Closely related however is the adjective
ΒΝ} which occurs once in plural, Job. iii. 17, also in an intransitive
sense; unless indeed ¥31 and 9.3) be regarded as identical, vid.
Bottcher, Lehvd., ὃ 751 a, § 994, 8. Perowne, in the Expositor,
translates ‘‘all things are weary,” and observes: “this is the poetry
of the heart, The weary spirit sees its own weariness reflected on
all sides. Man interprets nature,—reads into it his own unrest and
dissatisfaction, and weary, profitless, laborious monotony.” But the
explanation of Delitzsch seems more in accordance with the context.

The object to be supplied after "2 is 23, The restless activity
exhibited by the things of nature communicates itself also to man,
and makes him restless; his eye is not satisfied with what it sees,
nor his ear content with what it hears. The expression about the
eye is not used in the same sense as in Prov. xxvii. 20. Hitzig
and Zéckler render YOU, “so that it will no longer hear,” lit,
“away from hearing.” But this is unnecessary. Y2% is construed
with }! of the thing with which one is satiated or satisfied. (See
chap. vi. 3; Job xix. 22; Ps. civ. 13.) Similarly ona is construed

314 The Book of Koheleth. [Ch. i. 8, 9.

with } preceding the object of which anything is full. See Ezek.
xxxii. 6, and comp. the verb in kal in Isaiah 11. 6; in piel, Jer. 11.
34; Ps. cxxvil. 5.

9. mv ap, The LXX. render tN interrogatively in both
parts of the verse, τί τὸ γεγονός ; αὐτὸ τὸ γενησόμενον" καὶ τί τὸ
πεποιημένον ; αὐτὸ τὸ ποιηθησόμενον ; and similarly Vulg. So the
Arab., Grotius, Bauer and others. So ‘W712 is a phrase indicative οἱ
a late period of the language. It means that which, identical with
Aram, , [\5, 79%, 179, Dan. ii, 28, 29, 45; Ezra vii. 18. Comp.
Koh. iii. 15; x. 14. The older language uses in this sense the
simple relative W'S, and “t's 5> in that of whatever (chap. vi. 10;
vil 24). ΠῸ though properly interrogative, was in certain cases used
to denote whafever (quodcunque), Job ΧΙ. 13 (in which sense the
more definite "ΠΡ 723, Num. xxiii. 3, is also employed), also to
denote something, anything (aliquid, quidquam), Gen, xxxix. 8; Prov.
ix. 13, and ‘D or YN Ὁ is used ,in the sense of guisguis, whoeter,
Exod. xxiv. 14; xxxll. 33. These references are those of Delitzsch.
See also Ewald, ὃ 331, 3; Ges.Kautzsch, § 124, 2; Kalisch, § 80,
τι. In t 817, (compare “EN NIT, Gen. xlii. 14), Delitzsch notes
the meanings 24 (est) guod and idem (est) guod are combined. S47 is
sometimes used to denote that two things are placed on the same
footing, as Job iii. 19, or are the same, Ps. cil. 28. i) is used
throughout the book specially with reference to events or circum-
stances in nature which occur of themselves, or independently of
the will of man (chap. iii. 15, 22; vi. 10, 125 vill. 75x. 143 xi 2);
ΓΙ of events which are the results of human action (i. 13, 143
11. 17; iv. 3, 8; ix. 3, 6). Koheleth by no means, however, affirms
here the Stoic doctrine of a recurring cycle of human history as set
forth in Virgil, Ecl. iv.

vin $3 pS, Dhere ts nothing new, Comp. Dani. 4; Num. xi. 6;
Deut. villi. 9; and in N.T. οὐ πᾶς, Matt. xxiv. 22; Luke i. 37;
Apoc. xxi. 27. See Ges.-Kautzsch, ὃ 152, 1; Ewald, §323 ὁ;
Kalisch, § 106 f-

The same thought appears in the Roman and Greek authors.
Thus Seneca, Epist. xxiv.: ‘Nullius rei finis est, sed in orbem nexa
sunt omnia; fugiunt ac sequuntur. Diem nox premit, dies noctem ;
zestas in autumnum desinit, autumno hienis instat, qua vere com-
pescitur, Omnia transeunt ut revertantur, nihil novi video, nihil

Ch. i. 9, 10.) Cretecal and Grammatical Comm. 315

novi facio. Fit aliquando et hujus rei nausea. Multi sunt qui non
acerbum judicent vivere, sed superfluum.” So Marcus Aurelius:
Lib. vi. 37, 6 τὰ viv ἰδὼν πάντα ἑώρακεν, ὅσα τε ἐξ ἀϊδίου ἐγένετο, καὶ
ὅσα εἰς τὸ ἄπειρον ἔσται" πάντα γε ὁμογενῆ καὶ ὁμοειδῆ ; vil. 1, οὐδὲν
καινὸν, πάντα καὶ συνήθη καὶ ὀλιγοχρόνια ; xii. 26, πᾶν τὸ γινόμενον
οὕτως ἀεὶ ἐγίνετο καὶ γενήσεται καὶ νῦν πανταχοῦ γίνεται. The same
thought occurs in Justin Martyr, Apol, i. 57, though his words are
too general to be regarded as a distinct reference to this text : od yap
δεδοίκαμεν θάνατον" τοῦ πάντως ἀποθανεῖν ὁμολογουμένου, καὶ μηδενὸς
ἄλλου καινοῦ GAN ἢ τῶν αὐτῶν ἐν τῇδε τῇ διοικήσει ὄντων. See ἃ re-
markable parallel also in Manilius, Astronomica, i. 522 ff.

το. WT Ὁ “Zs there anything, etc.” W%= Assyr. rsu, has here
the force of a hypothetical antecedent, granted that there is a thing
of which one might say—Delitzsch. On 127 seen. on verse 8. LXX.
have ὃς λαλήσει καὶ ἐρεῖ, and similarly Syr. Le ἄχος ἂς ; Knobel
considers they read V28*) 127, The Vulg. paraphrases the verse
“nihil sub sole novum, nec valet quisquam dicere.”

Mis used after M87 as its object in chap. vil. 27, 29, in the second
of which cases it is preceded as here by makkeph, but in both cases
connected with the following word by a conjunctive. Here, though
substantially the subject referring to that which follows it is marked
with a distinctive (tippecha), as if “see this, mew it is.” 13> See
our glossary. ody, b expresses the rule or measure with which
the comparison is made. WED AT WK, The irregularity here
of the singular verb instead of the plural, ousby being the antece-
dent; is best explained by regarding the verb as neuter. So chap.
li. 7, ὁ ΠῚ ΓΔ 3, and vid. Ges.-Kautzsch, ὃ 147, rem. 2. Ewald
and others suppose the relative to be understood, “that which has
occurred before our eyes was already long ago.” See also Ewald,
§ 294 ὁ 2, and § 295 4. Comp. Gen. xxxv. 26; xlvi. 22; 1 Chron.
ii. 9; ili. 1. Several MSS. have corrected the irregularity, and Renan
would read also the plural here and in verse 16. On ande com-
pare ΝΒ, Isa. xli. 26; pad, Deut. 11. 10, 12, etc, ΞΟ, 2 Sam,
x. 9. That which is considered new in one generation sometimes
turns out to have been known in another, and afterwards to have
fallen into oblivion, so that the old, when it reappears, seems to
be new,

316 The Book of Koheleth. ὀτοιτ τι, τ.

11. DVN? TPS, [Lis generally regarded as placed in the
construct before ? owing to the intimate connexion. So Gesenius,
Elster, Knobel. See Ges.-Kautzsch, § 116,.1; Philippi, Stat. Const,
p. 59. ΤΙ may be viewed with Delitzsch as in the absolute state,
being then regarded as another form of }}73t, and one more common
in later Hebrew. Comp. 17), verse 3, ΟΞ, chap. ii. 21; iv. 4.

ΣΡ and DNS are often regarded, especially by the older
comm. as neuters, and so Graetz among the modern. In such cases
the fem, would be expected, as in Isaiah xlil, 9; xliii. 9, 183 xlvi. 9.
Elster and Herzfeld think both men and things are referred to.
Knobel, Delitzsch, etc., consider the reference to be to persons.
DL'S is used for those of former time (Deut. xix. 14) and D'IN® for
those of later generations (chap. iv. 16; Job xviii. 20.) Comp. also
Gen. xxxil. 2. The article is used with both words, hence the
kametz under the . Compare 0°27? used of persons, 1 Sam. xxiv.
14, and M3932 used adverbially, Isa. xlviii. 18; and even in this
very verse the masc. Ἢ and "ΝΟ in the first part are contrasted with
nod in the close.

Marcus Aurelius (Lib. iv. 34) speaking of the names of great men
as mere words which need interpretation, says ἐξίτηλα yap πάντα
Kat μυθώδη ταχὺ γίνεται: ταχὺ δὲ καὶ παντελὴς λήθη κατέχωσεν. OF the
ordinary class of men he notes, of γὰρ λοιποὶ ἅμα τῷ ἐκπνεῦσαι, αἴστοι,
ἄπυστοι, and in cap. 35 he observes, πᾶν ἐφήμερον, καὶ τὸ μνημονεῦον
καὶ τὸ μνημονευόμενον. So in Lib, il. 17 he remarks, ἡ ὑστεροφημία
δὲ λήθη. ΄

12. See our remarks on this verse p. 88 ff. and specially note on
p. 93. Graetz translates “I Koheleth am king,” and calls atten-
tion to the fact that 7° often means to decome as well as 20 be.
He regards the word as signifying that the person represented here
as the speaker is described as a parvenu king. “I have become
king.” But, even if Graetz’s theory were true that Herod the Great
was depicted under the person of Koheleth, this explanation would
not suit the passage, for the speaker is relating actions performed
in the past, and is not speaking of his condition at the moment of

writing. The expression “king over (oY) Israel” is occasionally
found in the earlier books, 1 Sam, xv, 26; 2 Sam, xix. 23; 1 Kings
xi..37. The more usual expression is “ king of Israel.”

13. b ab ἸΠ2 is to give one’s heart or mind toa matter, The phrase

Ch. i. 12, 13.) Credecal and Grammatical Comm. 317

occurs in chap. i. 13, 173 vii. 213 vill, 9. 16, also in Dan. x. 12;
1 Chron. xxii. 19. Similar phrases are 2.02 nw, Ps, xlviii, 14;
> 35 pn 2 Chron. xii. 14. Compare tabby 10), ἐν φρεσὶ θεῖναι,
Koh. vii. 2; ix. t. The synonymes Ὁ Ἴ and “1A do not refer to a
lower or higher degree of investigation (Zéck/er), but to two different
methods ; 77 signifies to search into the root of matters (the word
implying vudding, testing), ὍΤΙ rather to investigate on all sides. So
Delitzsch. Hence the latter word is suitably used of the spies
searching the land of Canaan (Numb. xiii. 1, 16, 17), and in this
passage figuratively of intellectual research, The Midrash Shir-ha-
Shirim, chap. i. 1, considers the word ΠΣ to be used by Koheleth
in reference to the work done by the spies spoken of in Numbers,
to which he figuratively compares his work. One would have
expected the author to have used in this place and in verse 16 (also
in chap. ii. 5, 9, 12, 13, εἴς, ; ili, 225 iv. 1,73 villi. 17; ix. 15, etc.),
the imperf. with vav conversive, instead of which he has made use
of the perfect with simple vay. See Ewald, ὃ 343 ¢, Driver, Zed,
Tenses, § 133. See especially the note of the latter in his 2nd edit.
Ρ. τοι.

Yr PMN, This ἐς an evil business, or exercise, ze. the investi-
gation and search after those things which are done under the
sun. Nii is subject as chap. ii. 1. It is generally used in this book
as a predicate. The ordinary reading is ¥) [9 in which case is
the construct, and ¥% either the adj. or the noun (see Ewald,
§ 287 a, 1). But the better MSS. and the older editions, as Delitzsch
mentions in his AzAdnge, have }}2Y with kametz, and so also in chap.
v. 13.

ἸῺΝ, trouble, business, occupation, in Biblical literature occurs only
in Koheleth, where it is found eight times, chap. i. 13; ii. 23, 26;
iii, τὸ ; lv. 8; v. 2,133 vili 16. It is very common in Rabb, Hebrew,
where it is used in the sense of business in the largest sense of the
word, for instance in that of the subject-matter of a discussion. See
examples cited by Delitzsch and Graetz. In Chaldee it is used (as
sometimes in the Targ. of the Psalms) in the signification of circum-
stances, thing, kind, affair. It is found in the Targg. in Ps. xix. 5 ;
xli, 2; Cant. 1. 11. Jerome observes “verbum ANIAN Aquila,
LXX., et Theod., περισπασμὸν similiter transtulerunt, quod in disten-
tionem Latinus interpres expressit, eo quod in varias sollicitudines

318 The Book of Koheleth. [Ch, i. 13-15.

mens hominis distenta lanietur. Symm. vero ἀσχολίαν, id est, occu-
pationem, transtulit.” 4) pbs. |) for DTN 1Π2 TWN,

14. ΠῚ MY. ~The word MY occurs seven times in this book,
chap. i. 143 ii. 11, 17, 263 iv. 4, 6; vi. 9, in all these cases followed
by 4%. The word occurs elsewhere only in the Chaldee parts of
Ezra (v. 17; vii. 18). It has been erroneously derived from YY} or
LY, to make a noise, to break, and hence rendered by perturbation of
mind, or afficctio spiritus (Vulg.), or by kindred phrases in the Syr.
and Targ.; Symm. in vi. 9, κάκωσις πνεύματος. But MY as well as
WY, chap. ii. 22 (used also in a parallel formula, ΠῚ JY verse 17;
chap. iv. 16) are both derived from 127, Renan would in all these
cases read iY. But the two distinct words are in existence, and
ya occurs frequently in the Chaldee of Daniel (ii. 29, 30; iv. 16,
etc.). MW is the fem. of Y7 or W (in Nv) like 419 (in nbw'ann) =
m2 or M2 (Bottcher, Zekrb. ὃ 704). The wf is the abstract feminine
ending like nian, which in Aramaic was apocopated into 13919,
ΠΡῚ means both to feed and to delight in. Hence some have
rendered the phrase here a ‘feeding on wind.” So Aq. and Theod.,
νομὴ ἀνέμου, Symm. (chap. 1. 14), βόσκησις ἀνέμου, which rendering
he gives for 1 ἢ») in chap. iv. 16. The LXX, render both phrases
alike by προαίρεσις πνεύματος. Compare on the sense, Hosea xii. 2,
m9 AYO DMD, which is explained by the parallel 0% 971, and
Jer. xliv. 20. TBS MW, he strives after ashes.

15. pnd boyy ND MW, The crooked cannot be straightened. Knobel
adduces the proverb from Suidas ξύλον ἀγκύλον οὐδέποτ’ ὀρθόν. IPA
occurs in two other passages of this book, viz. chap. vil. 13, and
xii, 9, both piel. The word is not found elsewhere in Bibl. Heb.
It occurs in the Chald. of Dan. iv 33, in hophal, and is of frequent
occurrence in both Chald. and Syr. in the-sense of to arrange, to
set in order. Delitzsch notcs that itis common in the Mishna. A
derivative ΡΠ in later Hebrew is the technical term for arvange-
ment, order, DEAD YPN, the arrangement of the scribes, pea PPA, the
order of the world. Note the intransitive inf. in 9, }PA instead of
ΡΠ, Delitzsch compares ΟἿ), 7p, 55); compare f*, in chap, v.
11. The sentiment of this passage recurs again at chap. vil. 13.
The LXX. διεστραμμένον οὐ δυνήσεται ἐπικοσμηθῆναι. The Targ.,
Vulg., Syr. and some later commentators have misunderstood the
passage to refer to the sins or immoralities of man,

Ch. i. 15,16.) Critical and Grammatical Comm. 319

15. lh. An ἅπαξ dey. in the Biblical writings. The idea is ex-
pressed in the other books by 45712, a derivative from the same root.
‘Nitself occurs frequently in Rabb. Hebrew to signify ὦ loss, a deficit,
the phrase Θ᾽ ἼΘΙ being commonly used fora deficit in the purse,
or Joss of money. See Levy, Meuheb. W.B.,s. v. Delitzsch in his
glossary quotes the words of the high priest in the prayer on the
Day of Atonement: “Should loss (007) befall us on this day
or this year, may our loss be one caused by good works (JDM Sn
niyo Sy ypna),”

The meaning of the niphal 739 must here be 10 be brought to the
full number. The phrase means “a deficit. cannot be counted,” ie.
as a whole, and is similar to the proverb, “ where there is nothing,
there is nothing to count.” So Delitzsch, similarly Kleinert, and,
among the ancient interpreters, Theod. καὶ τὰ ὑστεροῦντα οὐ δυνάνται,
numerart calculo, Syr. Hex. bosan.od asidiad. See Field’s
Fexapla. Knobel takes 731) in the signif. of the Chald. °32 zo set
up, and explains the sense to be: the wants in life are innumerable,
and what is once wanting in circumstances of life for a full enjoy-
ment thereof cannot be made up by human efforts. Symm. renders
(καὶ) ὑστέρημα μὴ δυνάμενον ἀναπληρῶσαι ἀριθμόν. LXX. καὶ ὑστέρημα
οὐ δυνήσεται ἀριθμηθῆναι. Bridges supposes the passage to refer to
man as being “a creature of so many wants,” The latter idea is,
however, quite foreign to the text. Renan and Plumptre are probably
correct in regarding this verse as a quotation of an aphorism either
common in the writer’s day or borrowed from an earlier writer.

16, “ΝΠ, The 38 is pleonastic, see Ges.-Kautzsch, § 137, 3,

rem. 2, and Excurs. 4. Soy 123, means most probably, as the awd
following shows, to speak to the heart, but the phrase might be used in

ny

the sense of fo speak tn the heart, as Deut. vill. 5 ; comp. by 137, 1
Sam. i. 13. See Delitzsch’s Bib/. Psych., p. 134 (Engl. ed. p. 293).
‘MEDINA, The second verb might be regarded as the com-
plement of the first, the phrase implying “I became very great in
wisdom. See Ges.-Kautzsch, ὃ 142, 3 a, Ewald, ὃ 285 a, Kalisch,
§ 103, 2. Kleinert renders the perfects here, after 737, as futures,
“T will become great, etc.,” and refers to 1 Kings iii, 12, the phrase-
ology of which is imitated here. See Ewald, ὃ 135 ¢ The em-
ployment, however, of the perfect in the next clause is some objec-
tion to this. m1 “ἘῸΝ 50, On the sing. 1°71 vid note on verse το.

320 The Book of Koheleth. [Ch. i. 16, 17.

‘yy dy Ὁ WN, Compare τ Chron. xxix. 25, qonba-by mand ats:
dyn oy Bd, The phrase in Koheleth if strictly construed would
imply that there were more kings than one before Solomon who
reigned over Jerusalem, and is therefore to be regarded as a slight
anachronism. But the phrase in Chronicles construed strictly could
be justified by fact, inasmuch as Saul as well as David ruled over
Israel, though not over Jerusalem. See on the whole passage our
remarks in pp. 88-95.

Δ) ΠΝῚ 39), Zo see wisdom, ete. to have knowledge and appre-
hension of it. Compare the cognate phrase 125 Y', chap. viil. τό,
and John ii. 21, οἴδατε ἀλήθειαν. See on the expression, Delitzsch’s
Bibl. Pyschology, p. 254 (Engl. ed. p. 276).

277 prop. inf. hiph., used also as an adverb, Ges. Lehrg. p. 627,
Ges.-Kautzsch, ὃ roo, 2 d, Ewald, ὃ 240 ¢,§ 280 a. Konig, Zerg,
p- 536. It qualifies both verbs and nouns, but is placed after and not
before the word qualified. It is here used as an adverb qualifying the
N81 which precedes, and not the 793M which follows it. See 2 Kings
x. 18; 2 Sam. vill. 8; 1 Kings v. 9. In Koheleth it is used as an
adjective with nouns, chap. ii. 7; v. 6, 16; vi. τα; ix. 18; xi. 8; xii.
9, 12; as an adverb, chap. v. 19; vii. 16, 17. Hence the transl.
“ My heart saw much wisdom and knowledge” (Zwadd, Ginsburg,
Plumptre) is incorrect. The Gr. Ven, in translating 7 καρδία μου
τεθέαται καταπολὺ σοφίαν καὶ γνῶσιν has shown ἃ nice perception
of Hebrew Grammar. See Delitzsch’s Pref. to Gebhardt’s edition
of the Greecus Venetus, p. vill. 230 and NY differ as σοφία and
γνῶσις, sapientia and intelligentia; the former indicates practical
wisdom, the latter theoretical insight (Aode/).

17. 12981. The cohortative ending gives here an intensive mean-
ing to the imperfect. The cohortative 7> is really the remains in
Hebrew of the energetic form of the imperfect in Arabic. See W.
Wright’s Avab. Gram., § 97, rem. ¢. On the form in Hebrew see
Ewald, § 232 g., and better Stade, Zefrd., § 480, especially rem. 2.
The form is often used after the strong νὰν or νὰν conversive. The
imperfect with νὰν conversive occurs only three times in this
book, viz. chap. i. 17; iv. 1, 7, whereas the perfect with simple
νὰν occurs repeatedly. Comp. remarks on chap. 11. 5. Driver
remarks that “this circumstance, estimated in the light of what is
uniformly observable in other parts of the Old Testament, is of itself,

Ch. i. 17.] Critical and Grammatical Conn. 321

though naturally it does not stand alone, a strong indication of the
date at which that book [Koheleth}] must have been composed.”
Hebrew Tenses, § 133. See his note in the.second enlarged edition
in reply to the arguments adduced by Johnston in his Zreatise on
the Authorship of Ecclesiastes. The vav conversive denotes in this
case the chronological sequence of the statement in the verse in its
relation to that in the preceding verse. See Driver, § 74 a.

ton nidhh ΤΡ. In consequence of nyt having been used in the

= ΟΣ

previous sentence, NY is used as an infinitive without the repetition
of the >. There is no occasion to strike out the words which follow
(220 mibon), as Ginsburg does in his translation. He considers that
they “‘ crept into the text through the carelessness of a transcriber,”
and with the LXX. he views ΠΡῚ as a noun connected with the
preceding 12M, It is certain, however, from the ancient versions
that the words so rejected were in the text. The LXX. render them
παραβολὰς καὶ ἐπιστήμην, not unnaturally regarding mibay to be the
same as boy understanding ; the Gr. Ven. has similarly rendered it
by νόησις. Hence Graetz would read ΣΝ movin, But nibs is,
according to the Masora, the same as ΠΣ which latter form
occurs frequently in this book. See Delitzsch on this passage, and
Ewald, § 50 a. Many MSS. have mba contrary to the Masora.
We find nidhia, independently of this passage, coupled with Ὁ in
chap, i 12. It follows mi>307) in chap. vil. 25. It occurs without
‘D in chap. ix. 3, while in chap. x. 13 the form mein occurs. These
are the only cases in which the word appears; it is found only in this
book. npoin in the same signification occurs once at least in the
Midrash Koheleth. ‘The form in Πὴ is that of the abstract sing.; the
form in ΠῚ is, as Delitzsch has pointed out, that of an intensive
fem. plur. as M733 Zeph. iii. 4, ΓΞ, ΤΊΣΙ, vid. Bottcher, ὃ yoo
The LXX. render it here by παραβολαί, which rendering is followed
by the Syr., but in chap. ii. 12, and vii. 25 by παραφορά. Aquila,
πλάναι. ὶ

‘yu si ΠῚ, Compare 1 Chron. xxii. 1, "ἡ ΓΞ δ Π ΠῚ ~The personal
pronoun is generally regarded in such cases as equivalent to the
substantive verb; the 817 is placed as copula between the subject
and the noun which is used as predicate, as Gen. ii. 14; ix. 18 and
here, and sometimes after both, as chap. ii. 23; Gen. xxxiv. 21.

Y

322 The Book of Koheleth. (Ch. i. 17-ii. a.

Vid. Ges.-Kautzsch, § 121, 2, but see Driver’s Hebrew Tenses, second
edit. § 201, 3.

yy, See note on verse 14.

18, 5D!" is more easily explained as ‘a participle kal for 4",
than as a participle hiphil for the regular ’P2 which is found
Neh. xiii. 8. Bottcher has maintained the latter view, ZeAré.,
§ 994, 3. But see Ewald, ὃ 169 a, Stade, § 214 ὁ, and 8 roo, and
specially Konig, § 36, 1 (p. 404). For similar forms, reference is
made to Isa. xxix. 14; xxxviii.5; Ps. xvi. 5. But Delitzsch, in
his comm., points out that in all these passages the verb can be
explained as the imperfect, and so Ges.-Kautzsch, § 50, rem. τ. In
reply to Bottcher’s assertion that there is no other example where
two imperfects taken impersonally follow one another, Delitzsch
adduces Prov. xii. 17, PT¥ 74! ΠΡΟΣ 1. Hoelemann notes that
this verse is a striking contrast to ‘‘ sapere aude” and the panacea
of the present day.

Renan regards this verse as an aphoristic quotation from some
older source, but this is improbable. Delitzsch notes that the
proverb ‘“‘much learning causes headache” may be suitably com-
pared with chap. xii. 12, but not here where mental grief and pain
is that implied by both the nouns which are made use of.

CHAPTER II.

1, 303 NON, Vid. note on chap. i. τό.

NDB imperf. piel of 1D), The Vulg. renders ef affuam delicits,
connecting it in some way (like Ibn Ezra) with 1D), to pour out
(as if 73038 niphal, see Delitzsch on Ps. ii. 6). The signification
of the latter verb, however, will not admit of this. 10) is construed
with 3 of the means, or instrument, by which the trial is made, chap.
vil. 23; 1 Kings. x. 1. Hengstenberg thinks that the germ of the
parable of our Lord in Luke xil. 16-21 is contained in the first two
verses of this chapter. The 3, the fuller form of the suffix 4, is
used, (1) to make the suffix more distinct in words which end in
caph, eg. 7228, 1 Sam. i. 22, (2) to lengthen in writing shorter
words, as 72X32, Gen. x. 19, (3) less frequently, as in this passage, in
longer words, which last usage may be a mark of later date. See
Bottcher, § 871. aI AN, Words which refer primarily to the

Ch. ii. it, 2.) Cretical and Grammatical Comm. 355

senses are often used in a figurative sense of any experience however
derived. Hence /o see is often used in the signification of to experi-
ence and to enjoy. Comp. in N.T, Luke ii. 26; John iii. 36; viii. 51.
Knobel notes that the idea of enjoyment which is sometimes sup-
posed to lie in M8) when construed with 3 does not necessarily
belong to that phrase, as it is also employed with respect to experi-
ences by no means pleasurable (Gen, xxi. 16; xliv. 34). ‘87is the
imp. and forms part of the address to the heart. It cannot be the
infinitive, as Graetz regards it.

2. Joy and laughter are personified ; the words spoken to them
are put in the oratio obligua. Knobel understands the passage differ-

ently, and translates 2 by 2x reference to, appealing to Ps. iii. 3; xxii.
31; Isa. v. 1, etc. Pleasure in general is signified by “joy,” and un-
restrained merriment by “laughter”; which latter often appears to
be folly, if not worse, to an unconcerned looker-on. Compare
Seneca, Epist. 23, “Animus debet esse alacer et fidens, et super
omnia erectus. Res severa est verum gaudium. Ceterz hilaritates
non implent pectus, sed frontem remittunt ; leves sunt, nisi forte tu
illum judices gaudere, qui ridet.”

ddim part. poal mad, comp. Ps, οἷ, 9. It is masculine and not
neuter, hence Hitzig’s rendering “dummes Zeug,” a foolish thing,
is incorrect, The hithpoal is used in the sense of fo be mad in
1 Sam. xxi. 14; Jer. xxv. 16; 11. ἡ. The Greek translators have all
understood the word in the sense of evvov, and so Vulg., but the old
Latin better, amentia,

my nim, On nt see Ges.-Kautzsch, § 34. ΠῚ is ashortened and
later form of ΠΝ, It occurs in 2 Kings vi. 19; Ezek, xl. 45, and
in several places in this book. It must not be confounded with it
another form of 4", which is of the common gender. Nor is it identi-
cal with the Mt found in the phrase ΠΙΞῚ ΠΣ, thus and thus, Jud. xviii.
4. See Bottcher, Zehrb., § 897 «. Delitzsch observes that the use
of ΠῚ τῇ Koheleth is similar to that in the Mishna. For Koheleth
uses it regularly without the article in cases: similar to those in the
Mishna, 2 ΠῚ, his dindr, WIV ΠῚ, this interpretation. In cases
where the writer does not use the masculine ΠῚ in a neuter sense
(such as chap. vil. το, 18, 29; vili.g; ix. τ; xi. 6), he employs in
this signification no other feminine form than ΠῚ, Mishnaic ἡ", as in
chap. ii. 2; v. 15-18; vii. 23; ix. 13. The use of the pronouns is

324 The Book of Koheleth. [Ch. ii. 2, 3.

also, as Delitzsch notes, in other points akin to that of the Mishna.
So in chap, i. ro, 8177 ΠῚ is like the Mishn. 47}, ches Zs.

TY is the feminine of AY'y agreeing with 9%, The Syriac ren-
ders freely, — ΤῊΣ to what use? But there is no reason to sup-
pose it had a different rendering. MY is used in the sense 20 get,
to obtain, Ezek. xxviii. 4; Judg. xiii. 15. Hitzig regards the meaning
as equivalent to 1) NYY. Delitzsch compares the use of the noun
MEY to signify the result or effect of work in: Isaiah xxxil. 17.

Renan views this verse also as a quotation, but it is scarcely
probable.

3. See p. 145. °M02. The verb YA does not mean to prove (as
Hengstenberg), but to ssy out, to explore, to look round about, etc.
See Num. x. 33, and many other passages. The word occurs three
times in Koheleth (chap. i. 13 ; ii. 3; vii. 25), in the sense of seek out
and discover by mental effort. It means scarcely to purpose or 10 resolve.
The verb 79, with which it is connected, literally means fo draw,
and has been variously explained as signifying δῦ strengthen the body
in the sense of Horace’s se denignius tractare (so Gesenius in Thes.), or
to hold fast the sensual desires by wine, #.e. to give free indulgence to
them (Ayobe/). But these and other meanings assigned to the word
rest on no sufficient basis. The passage is loosely paraphrased in our
A.V. “I sought in mine heart to give myself unto wine.” Hitzig
considers that the writer in this verse compares his body in the first
clause to a carriage, wine, as the motive power, being thought of
as the horse ; while in the second clause he compares wisdom to a
coachman placed on the box, in order to: prevent the steed from
throwing the carriage into a pit or morass. Later writers, as Tayler
Lewis, in the English edition of Zockler, and Perowne, in the
Expositor, have improved on this by comparing the supposed picture
drawn by Koheleth to the beautiful parable of Plato (Phedrus, 54 f)
ofthe νοῦς or Reason as a charioteer driving his two horses, the fierce
steed being the flesh with its lusts, and the gentle one Platonic love.
But the resemblance is purely fanciful. For, as Delitzsch has pointed
out, 122 does not mean to draw in this sense, but to draw towards
oneself, to attract by sensual delights. Similarly Syriac ον
ζῶ |jauo, fo delight my flesh with wine. This seems to be the
sense put upon the passage by the Targ. “Ὁ draw out (732) my
flesh in the house of the banguet of wine,’ and of the more literal
rendering of the Grac. Ven., ὡς ἕλκοιμι ἐν οἴνῳ τὴν σάρκα μου.

Ch. ii 3.1 Cretical and Grammatical Comme. 325

is often employed in this signification in Rabb. Heb. Buxtorf
quotes the phrase DYNAN WO as equivalent 20 indulge in
Pleasures. Comp. also Chagiga 14 a. by rad ΛΣΤ ΜΝ soya abs
D2 DIN “ these are the masters of the Aggada who draw (entice, refresh)
the heart of man as water does,” Tayler Lewis’ explanation, “I sought
diligently when my flesh was furiously driving on i” wine, or
pleasure [}"2 being supposed to signify the state or condition] to
draw it, to restrain it, to bridle it, to keep it, in the path of temper-
ance” is, for many reasons, perfectly impossible. TW is nowhere
used in such a signification. Graetz alters the text, rendering nw,
He notes, indeed, that that verb is used chiefly of anointing with oil ;
but, inasmuch as it occurs also in the sense of panting with ver-
milion (Jer. xxii. 14), he translates the text so amended by “ ¢o
embrocate my body with wine,” and observes that herein lies a raffine-
ment that, while others were satisfied to anoint themselves with oil,
Koheleth wished to do so with wine. Delitzsch remarks on this that
Koheleth might with more propriety have spoken of bathing himself
in wine, and, if such a conjecture were admissible, the text might even
further be improved by reading ‘21°3 in place of 1", 26. in Grecian
(wine), eg. Chian, Falernian, Champagne!! The idea of the
Breslau professor is about as good as that of a well-known temper-
ance advocate who, unable to answer the argument of those who
were defending the moderate use of strong drink, drawn from St.
Paul's advice to Timothy to “use a little wine for his stomach’s
sake” (1 Tim. v. 23), had the hardihood to affirm that the Apostle
intended the wine to be used as an embrocation!! The LXX.
translation is unsuitable, καὶ κατεσκεψάμην εἰ ἣ καρδία μου ἑλκύσει ὡς
οἶνον τὴν σάρκα μου, but it is evidence in support of the present

reading. Aquila and Theod. also translate nb by ἑλκῦσαι. The
Vulg. expresses the very opposite of the sense of the passage “‘ cogi-
tavi in corde meo abstrahere a vino carnem meam.”

The clause ‘my heart acting with wisdom” is to be regarded as
a kind of parenthesis, as is evident from the use of the participle 499
and from the tnd), which is connected with. wD, and, like it, under
the government of ΠΣ, The sense of the passage has been given
on p. 145. A variety of translations have been assigned to 42, but
it is pretty evident that it is used in the sense of 40 act, to conduct
oneself, a meaning common in the language of the Mishna. See

326 The Book of Koheleth. [Ch. ii. 3, 4.

Glossary. LXX. καὶ καρδία pov ὡδήγησεν ἐν σοφίᾳ. Incorrectly Symm.
iva τὴν καρδίαν μου petaydyw εἰς σοφίαν.

By folly in this verse the sensual pleasures are evidently intended
which are afterwards mentioned in detail. Nachtigal, and after him
Kaiser, maintained that idolatry was here meant by folly. But of
this there is no proof whatever.

ANIN WNW, The expression is old Hebrew—Delitzsch. ap Troe
What might be good. M8 is the interrogative which? what? used
both in direct questions as 1 Kings xiii. 12, or in indirect, as here
and in chap. xi. 6. See Ewald, § 326 a, WY’ WS means either Zaz
which they do, or, that which they should do. Perhaps the latter ren-
dering ought, with Delitzsch, to be preferred on account of the parallel
passages in chap. ii. 24; ill, 223; v. 4,5, 18. ‘N*M TBDD, “ During
the number of the days of their life.” 802 is in the accusative,
Ges.-Kautzsch, § 118, 2, Kalisch, § 86 f So chap. v. 173 vi 12;
Job xv. 20. Knobel translates, “ during the few days of thetr life,”
as 2 is used for “few,” “ some” (Num. ix. 20; Job xvi. 23; Isa,
x. 19. But this idea is hardly suitable to the passage; and moreover
BD) when so employed does not precede the noun in the construct
state as here, but either follows it in the genitive, or is used as a
predicate.

4. Ὦ ‘msn, See note on chap. 1, 16. On the buildings of
Solomon see 1 Kings vii. ; ix. 15-223 2 Chron. viii. 3-6. It is not
surprising that the writer, in making reference to the buildings of
Solomon erected to gratify his sensual tastes, should abstain from all
mention of the building of the temple. But, had the book been
an autobiography, some allusion would necessarily have been made
to that great fact in Solomon’s history. The Targum introduces a
reference to it in its rendering of this passage.

DNA is to be read not doftim but daitim. It is often pointed
Dna, the daghesh after heavy metheg serving to distinguish the word
from B°N2 part. of M3. See Ges.-Kautzsch, ὃ τό, 2 4, and the
other authorities quoted in my critical note in Zechariah and his
Prophecies, p. 594.

Mention is made of David’s vineyards in 1 Chron. xxvii. 27. A
vineyard belonging to Solomon is referred to in the Song of Songs
chap. viii. 11, and in such a manner as to suggest the idea that the
vineyard had been given up or sold. Whether this be a correct
interpretation of that passage or not, there is no ground, with Knobel,

Ch. ii. 4-6.] Cretical and Grammatical Comm. B27

to accuse the writer as guilty here of exaggeration. David’s vine-
yards passed into the possession of Solomon, and there is little
doubt that Solomon added to their number. He was peculiarly
fond of gardens, as the references to them in the Song of Songs,
chap. vi. 2, and also in 1 Kings iv. 33, abundantly prove.

5. ‘BY N13, See previous note. Gardens of herbs are spoken of
in Deut. xi. 10; 1 Kings xxi, 2; and the king’s garden, which was
undoubtedly a resort of pleasure, is frequently referred to in the
historical books (eg. 2 Kings xxii 18; xxv. 4; Neh. iil, 153; Jer.
XXXIX. 4).

D2, which occurs only here and in Cant. iv. 13; Neh. il 8, was
introduced from the Persian into Greek by Xenophon in the form
παράδεισος. The Greek word is used several times by the LXX as
the translation of {3 (Gen. ii. 8 ff; xiii, 10; Num. xxiv. 6, and of 7133,
Jer. i. 30). The word is borrowed also not only by the Aram. but by
Arabic and Armenian. Whether it be derived from the Zend pazri-
@aéza or from the Sanskrit paradéca is yet a matter of dispute. See
Friedr, Delitzsch, Wo lag das Paradies? pp. 95 ff. The plural in
the Mishna language is MDW72. It is certain that it means a park
planted with trees. Observe here the simple perfect with 1, where
one would have expected the imperf. with νὰν conversive. Ewald,
§ 343 ¢. See note onchap.i.17. "2 b> YY. Trees of all sorts of
fruit. Comp. Ges.-Kautzsch, § 111, 1, rem.

6. 1373, a pool, tank, or pond, artificially constructed. Arab.
0 plural, i272 (M372 is the plural const. of 1373, abs. M273)

possibly from the stem 13, Zo dnee/, as if a place where the camels
kneel down to drink water; or from that stem in the sense of Zo
continue, because of the continuance of the water therein (see
Lane’s Arad. Lex.) ; or better as meaning £6 spread out, in the sense
of an extended surface of water, as Delitzsch explains the Arabic
lexicographers (see his Comm. iber d. Genesis, ate Ausg. p. 98).
*“The king’s pool” is mentioned in Neh. ii. 14; and the nwa n213
(identified by the Vulg. and by the A.V. with the pool of Siloam,
but probably not identical with it), is spoken of in Neh. iii, 15 as
belonging to the king’s garden (eon 129), Solomon's pool 1s spoken
of by Josephus (Bel/. Jud., lib. v. 4, § 2). There are three pools of
Solomon still in existence, near the ancient Etam. Comp. Joseph.
Antig., viii. 7, 3. The pools mentioned here were constructed “in

328 The Book of Koheleth. [Ch. ii. 6, 7-

order to water from them a forest of trees.” 572 instead of 1i}2
(the word for fool is feminine), which latter in its turn, as Delitzsch
observes, is employed in the Mishna in place of 579. See Geiger,
Lehrb. 4, Mischn., § 13. Knobel, however, considers the pronoun to
refer to O°,

VNDS Wa wood sprouting out trees, in place of sprouting out
with trees. Verbs which signify growth, flowing, swimming, etc.,
instead of using prepositions, take after them nouns in the accusative
specifying the completion of the idea conveyed by the verb. See
Ewald, ὃ 281 4, Ges. Lehrg., p. 809, Ges.-Kautzsch, ὃ 138, I, rem. 2,
‘Kalisch, § 102, 7. So Isa. v. ; 6 xxxiv. 133 Prov. xxiv. 31.

4, 'y NP, refers here evidently to procuring by purchase (comp.
Gen. xvii. 12), although Knobel conceives the idea to be more
general, and to include the home-born slaves. These are, however,
mentioned in'the second clause. A distinction was generally made
between the slaves born in the house and those procured in any
other way. Home-born slaves are termed here, and in Gen. xv. 3,
nia", more usually M2 vp (Gen. xiv. 143 xvii. 23, 27). The
LXX. render both phrases οἰκογενεῖς. The servants and attendants
of Solomon are specially noted in 1 Kings iv. 27, 28, and in 1 Kings
x. 5, as having excited the astonishment of the Queen of Sheba.
Many who performed such service were Canaanites reduced to
slavery (1 Kings ix. 20, 21), so that there is no occasion to treat
the statement here, with Knobel, as “free fiction.”

"Ὁ nn for Ὁ 1M, See note on chap. i. το.

WT 4P1 ΠΡΌ, The construct 737) would have been naturally
expected here (comp. Gen. xxvi. 14 ; xlvii. 17, 18 ; 2 Chron. xxxii. 29),
and such is the reading of several MSS. and editions. The correct
Masoretic text has, however, the absolute, as Delitzsch has pointed
out. He observes that 12. must be regarded as in apposition, like
pb’ pnt, Exod. xxiv. 5; MWMIN WPAN, 2 Kings xvi. 17, though the
nouns that follow here might be regarded as accusatives of closer
definition (Ewald, § 281¢, Ges.-Kautzsch, § 139, 2, rem., Kalisch,
§ 86 4), herds consisting of oxen and sheep. Delitzsch regards
such a construction as too artificial for a book of so late a date.
Solomon seems to have been in possession: of enormous flocks and
herds, as is proved by the sacrifices performed on the occasion ot
the consecration of the temple (1 Kings vili. 63), and from the

Ch. it. 7,8.) Critical and Grammatical Comm. 329

account given of the daily provision for his table (1 Kings iv. 22 ff).
The Israelitish kings were also often possessors of extensive flocks
(1 Chron. xxvii. 29-31).

The mention made in this verse of “all that were before me
in Jerusalem,” as also the same phrase in ver. 9, would naturally be
explained as referring to previous kings, if chap. i. 16 (or 1 Kings iti.
13; x. 23) be kept in view. But the phrase here may be under-
stood more generally.

8, °NDI2, This verb is common to all the Shemitic languages, in-
clusive of Assyrian, and, though specially used in the later Hebrew,
cannot be regarded as one peculiar to the later language.

nim 2 nba), Herzfeld seeks to explain the absence of the
article with D°D9D and its presence with ΠῚ) ΟΠ as owing to the fact
that, although kings changed, the districts of the empire or country
remained the same. Graetz arbitarily maintains that some word like
ΩΦ (Dan, xi. 24) must have fallen out before M12°27, The use
or disuse of the article may here have no special significance, though
it.is possible that in the phrase “of kings and of the countries,”
the former is used in a more partial, the second in a more general
sense. Hitzig and Zockler consider that 15. 1156 with ‘127 has special
reference to the twelve districts into which Solomon divided the
land of Israel for the purpose of taxation (1 Kings iv. 7 ff). But the
“districts” referred to were evidently not exclusively those of the
land of Israel, nor is the word "2 used in 1 Kings iv., where these
divisions are spoken of. The Persian empire is stated in Esth. i. 1
to have been divided into 127 such “ districts” (M1°7), Owing to
the large extent of these districts the word appears to be employed in
the more general signification of “lands,” “countries.” 1°12 does
not occur in any book of a date earlier than the exile. It is very
frequently used in the Book of Esther, but occurs in Koheleth only
in one other place, chap. v. 7.

Johnston calls attention to the fact that the only other place
where 73D occurs, in the sense of material. wealth or treasure, is in
1 Chron. xxix. 3; where David speaks of the treasure of gold and
silver available for the building of the temple. He considers this
fact “deeply significant” and as “one of the delicate and conclu-
sive evidences of the fact that the author of Ecclesiastes can have
been none other” than Solomon! See our remarks on p. 115.

330 The Book of Koheleth. [Ch. ii. 8.

nv at’, The expression only occurs: here, and has given rise
to a large number of conjectures. It is, however, tolerably clear
that women of various sorts are signified, who are referred to in the
preceding expression “the delights (220A, plur., 0°22VA, only here
MIVA) of the sons of men.” A verb shaddédu has been found in
Assyrian, and perhaps this explains the phrase, which probably means
“a@ love and loves” (see Friedr. Delitzsch, Paradies, p. 145). The
word may be explained, with Mithlau and Volck, from 77, 20 be
strong, or from T= (Olshausen, Lehrb. ὃ 83. 4) TW being, ἐφ.

m4, comp. Arab. ce , mistress, domina, the addition of the word
in the plural in one passage denoting abundance of such “ delights,”

like the Arab, expression Sei, Je, abundance of riches. The
reference to Isa. iil. 3, and to Ewald, § 172 ὦ, does not bear upon
our passage, as there is no difference of gender here between the
words. Knobel considers women spoken of, but connects the
word less suitably with an Arab. root to shut up, as a designation of
the wives of an eastern monarch. Rosenmiiller connects it with
WW, the breast, comparing the expression, Donn DO, Judges v. 30.
The word was a puzzle to the ancient translators. Aquila rendering
κυλίκιον καὶ κυλίκια; and so Vulg. “scyphos et urceos.” Symm.
(known here only by Jerome’s transl.) ‘‘mensurarum species et appo-
sitiones,” possibly connecting it with the Chald. "IY or 87’, %
four out, The Targ. probably connected. it with the same stem,
explaining it as ‘baths and bath-houses (having) channels hich
poured forth (78) lukewarm water, and channels which poured
forth warm water.” The LXX. seem to have connected the word
with the same root, though they render differently οἰνοχόον καὶ
οἰνοχόας, male and female cup-bearers, reading, perhaps, the words
as participles N17) nme (comp. 1 Kings x. 5; 2 Chron. ix. 4). So
Syr. Azaso 2 38 Others have assigned the word the meaning

of music (after the Arab. \nts, 40 sing), So Greece. Ven, σύστημα
καὶ συστήματα, harmony and harmonies. So Wimchi, Luther, Nach-
tigal. Rashi explains the phrase as Jeawtiful carriages, litters, con-
necting it with the Talmudic ΠΣ, ax ark, or clest; and Béttcher, in
his Lxeg.-krit, Achrenlese for 1849, connects it with the same, regard-
ing NNW TW to be chest and chests used in the sense of abundance
of anything, See above. In his Meue Achrenlese, he connects it with

Ch. ii. 8-10.) Critical and Grammatical Comm. BST

the same word, but considers that the phrase means “palanguin and
palanguins.” Graetz takes nearly the same view, and refers to the
Talmud Babli, Gitsin, 78 a, where it is said that the word was
understood in Palestine to mean chests, or sedan-chairs, but in
Babylon was considered to signify row ow, demons both male and
female ; the regular fem. plural is NY. See also the Midrash Shir-
ha-Shirim on chap. ili, 8. Delitzsch observes that this Hagadic
interpretation is at least on the right track, 1’, a demon, being con-
nected with the root 1% in the sense of to be aaron. 3

Ewald suggests that "1 is probably equivalent to Arab. ante,
power, strength, in the sense of a strong or high degree of any
quality, in which sense the Arabic-word also occurs (see Lane’s
Arab, Lex.), So Hahn. The sentence would then mean: “and the
delights of the sons of men in great abundance.’ In support of this
idea, Ewald observes that at the end of a long enumeration some
such phrase would be natural.’ We adhere, however, to the opinion
first mentioned.

9. ‘DIN mba, vid. n. on chap. i. 16. "4 for 17, vid. n. on chap.
1. τό. Ὁ ΠΊΡΝ, remained with me, ze. in spite of all my folly. The
verb occurs in this sense construed with 3 in Isaiah xlvii. 12, also
Jer. xlviii. rr. So Knobel, Delitzsch and others. Vulg. perseveravit
mecum. But Kaiser, Heinem., Herzfeld, Ewald, Graetz, prefer to
render “assisted me.” Herzfeld compares the Chanuka-prayer,
ony nya pad myo’; and Graetz adds that in the Agada for the
Passover evening the expression occurs 99) ΠΣ ΝΟ π ρυφ᾿ sun,
Comp. Dan. xii. 1, where the verb is construed with ὅν, Herzfeld
argues that Solomon’s wisdom was superfluous while he directed his
efforts toward what was sensual, but not, however, his ability, which
assisted him in carrying out his plans. But the verse evidently recites
the carrying out of the design spoken of in verse 3, and hence the
former rendering is to be preferred.

to, 07 in place of 17. Gesenius (LeArgeb., p. 731) ascribes this
to an incorrectness of speech common in ordinary language, in
which masculine pronominal suffixes were not uncommonly used
with reference to feminines. So Gen. xxvi..15 ; xxxi. 9; xxxii, 16;
Job i. 14; Prov. vi. 21. Herzfeld observes.that the masc. was often
used where the distinction between the genders was not necessary for
the sense. Comp. chap. x. 9; xi. 8; xii. 1. See Kalisch, § 77, 21.

332 The Book of Kohetleth. [Ch, ii, 10, ταν

ΓῺ D3—ny-N, 7 hept back my heart from no joy. Comp. Num.
xiv. τι. Graetz would here alter the text and read, Nov 19559 in

place of mv’ 5 5, But the change is unnecessary, and is sup-
ported by no authority save the Professor’s “must.” Hahn and
others translate “ after all my labour.” But }2 expresses here rather
the origin and cause of joy.

rr. Mwy> indo, Vid. Ges,-Kautzseh, § 45, 2, § 142, 2, Kalisch
§ 98, 5, comp. Gen. ii. 3.

23'S 25), The more usual construction is -by TB fo turn to,
ze, in the direction of any person or thing. 3 735 here, as in Job
vi. 28, is a kind of constructio pregnans, to turn towards in order
to fix the attention upon something as an object of contemplation.

12. Mendelssohn’s translation is impossible, “I turned myself
from the contemplation of philosophy (wisdom) in unison with mad-
ness and folly,” so Preston’s translation; or, as Delitzsch translates
Mendelssohn’s Hebrew, ‘I therefore gave up my attempt to desire
to combine wisdom with folly and madness.” Such a translation
would require mis ne, Moreover, the ellipsis of }2 cannot be
defended. Mendelssohn maintains a similar ellipsis at chap. vil. 29,
which is also impossible. Hitzig translates, “1 turned myself to
behold wisdom, and lo! it was madness and folly.” This would
require the insertion of and /o/ (7271) in Hebrew as well as in
English, The passages he appeals to do not justify the translation.
The two vavs are, as Delitzsch says, conjunctive and not correlative.

The second clause of the verse is best explained as we have done,
after Delitzsch, on p. 147: “For what is the man that is to come
after the king whom they made long ago?” Who can have greater
knowledge than Solomon, made king long ago amid the acclamations
of the people? The words are most suitably put into the mouth of
Solomon, who is represented as speaking of his wisdom as exceeding
that of all before him (chap. i. 16), and who had been promised
wisdom above all those who should come after him (1 Kings iii. 12).
The verse might well be cited as one of those which are inconsistent
with the traditional idea of the Solomonic authorship of the book.
On W'S NS, see Kohler on Zech, xii. ro, and the critical note in my
Bampton Lectures on Zechariah, p. 588. See also Ewald, § 332 ἃ.
Koheleth, in verse 19, speaks of himself as not knowing whether his
successor would be a wise man or a fool; and hence it would have

Ch. ἢ. 12 Cretical and Grammatical Comm. 8.323

been inconsistent for him to have referred to his successor as a man
certain to follow a course of folly; or, as some commentators explain
the text, as a man inheriting the throne but not the wisdom of his
sire. Ewald, Heiligstedt, and Elster regard the MN here as the
preposition, and translate, “dud I turned myself round to see wisdom
and folly and madness, namely, what the man would be [1.6. what
kind of a fool he would be] who should come after the king, compared
with him (Solomon) whom they have already made” king, Ζ.5. com-
pared with his predecessor. But, as Delitzsch notes, there is no
proof of Πὶδ in this pregnant sense, at least in the Book of Koheleth,
which does not employ Πὶδ as a preposition. There is perhaps less
objection to the transl. given by our A. V., Rosenmiiller, Knobel,
Hengstenberg, and Zoéckler, “for what can the man do that cometh
after the king? even that which hath already been done.” But any
reference to a successor to Solomon is foreign to the context of the
passage. According to that idea, there would be little or no con-
nexion between the two clauses of the verse. Hitzig would alter the
vocalization, reading 171¥Y (after Exod. xviii. 18) instead of ὙΠ,
On this alteration Delitzsch remarks, “that a writer of the age of
Koheleth would, instead of such an anomalous form, have used the
regular INWY. Moreover, INWY WIW NS he will do, or act that
which long ago was his doing (mode of action), is not Hebrew; it
must at least be MWY? 13 722 inva, or at least 1NWY.” The meaning
of. the clause, according to Hitzig, would be, he shall act like a
fool, as he has been long doing. The verse, however, states simply
that Solomon gave himself up to contemplate the relative value of
wisdom on the one hand, and of madness and folly on the other,
knowing that he was qualified for this task by reason of that wisdom
with which he had been endowed far above his fellows. The expres-
sion WY presents no difficulty, for the writer of 1 Chron. (chap.
xxix. 22) had no hesitation in speaking of Solomon as made king by
the people. The ancient versions seem quite at sea as to the mean-
ing of the passage. The LXX translate ὅτι τίς ἄνθρωπος ὃς ἐπελεύσεται
ὀπίσω τῆς βουλῆς, τὰ ὅσα ἐποίησεν αὐτήν ; and Symm. τί δὲ 6 ἄνθρωπος,
ἵνα παρακολουθήσῃ βουλῇ, both connecting ἼΡΌΠ with the Chald. and
late Hebrew 3 (122), council. Aquila, correctly, ὃς εἰσελεύσεται ὀπίσω
tov βασιλέως ; the Vulg. thinks of God as the Creator, “quid est,
inquam, homo, ut sequi possit regem Factorem suum?” Similarly

334 The Book of Koheleth. [Ch. iis 13-15,

ΤΙΝ “πὸ also ὌΝ jn. aces "ΔΘ ets, [pare οὖν artsy ΕΝ
y

PHP ws τος. «9 Sor what ts man that he should go after the king
an ‘judgment, and then (afterwards) τὰ his Maker? Strangely the
Targ. “For what use it is fora man to pray after the decree of the
king and after punishment? behold, it is already decided with respect
to him, and it has been done to him.”

Mm). See on this form Konig, Ledrgeb., § 19, 2 ὦ, Stade, Lehrb.,
ὃ 173 4 Ewald αὶ 182 ὁ. According to the Masora 1) occurs
twenty-four times, generally before ΠῚ and ¥. In eight instances, as
Delitzsch observes, this form occurs before other letters; three of
these are found in Koheleth, in all of which ΠῸ precedes the letter
ΤΠ, namely, chap. 11. 12, 22, and chap. vii. ro.

13. 1902 for ND which is the reading of some MSS. Good
MSS. read also 11903 (see Delitzsch, texthrit. Bemerk.). On }N" see
Glossary and note on chap. i. 3.

14. See remarks on p. 148. Note the use of the participles as
denoting that which is habitual. On ΠΡ, see Glossary. On the
thought in the verse comp., John xi. 10, and Cicero, de Nat, Deorum,
ii, 64, “totam licet animis tamquam oculis lustrare terram.” Z6ckler
takes the D4 in this verse (‘28 D4) as adversative, ‘yet 7, perceived.”
But, as Delitzsch notes, 03 in this sense should stand at the com-
mencement of the sentence. See Ewald, ὃ 354 a. The ὋΝ ΒΔ is here
emphatic. *

15. See note on chap. 1. 16, ‘38 D) is the accusative, in apposition
to the suffix in ‘31?! Vid. Ges.-Kautzsch, ὃ 121, 3. It precedes
here for emphasis, comp. Gen. xxiv. 27; Ezek. xxxil. 17. 792), °
asks after the object or design, ¥172 after the reasons for that object.
—Delitzsch. Wh See Glossary. “ἢ ATDW. That this also ἐς vanity,
namely, that there is no distinction often between the lot of the wise
man and the fool. The LXX. have attempted to give a different
turn to the latter clause of this verse. They connect 19) Τὸ with the
words following, and render περισσὸν ἐλάλησα ἐν καρδίᾳ μου ὅτι καί γε
τοῦτο ματαιότης, διότι ὃ ἄφρων ἐκ περισσεύματος λαλεῖ, making the
verse that follows to be the expression of the fool’s thoughts.
The words διότι ὁ ἄφρων «.7.A. are an exegetical gloss not in the
Hebrew, devised apparently to get over the difficulty of the passage.
‘The Syr. similarly adds at the beginning of v. 16, ~~ [am aro
Wika wis The same turn is given to the passage in the Ἄς.

Ch.ii 15-19.) Cratical aud Grammatical Comm. ον

(and in the comment. of Jerome), “locutusque cum mente mea
animadverti quod hoc quoque esset vanitas.”

τό. See p. 148. [1131. Seen. on ch. i. 11. Koheleth is speaking
here of wise men in general, not of the few examples of persons whose
names have been immortalised in history, 732¥. Long ago. See
Gloss. under 133. The writer transports himself in thought into the dis-
tant future. Comp. Aesch, 4gam., 579. ‘27 DD acc. of time. 237,
all, the whole of them, used of persons, as Ps. xiv. 3, or nbs in verse
14. It might, possibly, refer to all of the events in the history: of the
persons referred to. ‘101 "δ, “how dieth the wise man as the fool!”
ΝΣ used sarcastically, as Isa. xiv. 4; Ezek. xxvi. 17. See Ρ. 148.
DY is in both cases used as a particle of comparison, as in chap. vil. 11;
Job ix, 26; xxxvil. 18. Delitzsch compares 79, Ps. xlix. rr. But
it might mean in the second clause, “ how dieth the wise man along
with (in company with) the fool?” Less suitable is the rendering,
“ How dieth the wise man? As the fool/” given in the English
translation of Zockler, but not in the German original. n3v2 might,
as far as form goes, be explained as the perfect. But it is better
to. regard it as the participle which is used to express that which
ordinarily happens in human experience.

17. δον IN “evil to me,” zg. 1202 VY, similar to by 310 in Esth. iii.
9. This construction belongs to a late stage of the language. Comp.
ΠΝ 2°30, dear to thee, Aboth z, 10 (2, 14 in Taylor’s ed.). See
Ewald, § 217 2, p. 566. Hitzig explains the expression as, 7 was
evil upon me, te. like a heavy weight resting on me. So LXX.
πονηρὸν ἐπ᾽ ἐμέ, :

18. The author expresses himself in this. verse in a manner in-
consistent with the theory of the Solomonic authorship. Solomon, as
Delitzsch has well observed, would not have spoken of his successor
in such an undefined and unsympathetic manner.

“yy oan ΠΣ, « Because [ will leave it to the man who shall be
after me.” The suffix 13> refers to the boy of the previous sentence.
On the two forms of the hiphil of ΠῚ, and their various meanings,
see the Lexicon, and Ewald, § 114 ¢.

19. nbw vid. Glossary.

On the double interrogative vid. Ges.-Kautzsch, § 153, 2, rem.

20. ‘1a1°ni3D1, Compare in verse 12 4 15), The difference
between the two verbs, according to Delitzsch, is that 723 simply

336 The Book of Koheleth. [Ch. ii, 20-24.

means to ¢urn oneself round; and 239, when used in that sense, means
to ¢urn oneself round from one thing to another which might present
something new, worthy of special attention. On &&" see Glossary.

21. 4) ΠΙΟΞΠᾺ iSpy, Ewald translates “hose toil is about wis-
dom and knowledge, etc.” But the writer is speaking about a work
the result of which could be handed down to another to inherit.
Hence this translation is unsuitable. On construction, see Ewald
§ 309 ὁ. On 5 see Glossary.

χϑ > MAND,“ For what is to be the result to the man, ete.?”
Lit. “ what ἔς becoming,” about to happen to? The participle of 717
for 1°7 only occurs elsewhere in Neh. vi. 6, the participle of 7°7 only
once, Exod. ix. 3. On the pointing 79 vid. Ges.-Kautzsch, § 37.

win’ The reading of the better MSS. is ἐπ, like DAY chap.
iii. 18. See Delitzsch (¢extkrit. Bemerk.). In the latter case this
pointing occurs before makkeph, scarcely however, as Bottcher sup-
poses, from a desire to avoid the cacophony of τς (LeArd., § 263) ; but
more probably as Ewald thinks (§ 181 4) because the ¥ is regarded
as a separate word, and when used as the relative is pronounced as
short as possible. See also Kalisch, § xx. 2.

23. Abstract substantives are often similarly used as predicates.
Comp. chap. x. 12; Ps. v. 10; Isa. v.12, The parallelism proves
that 0931 is the predicate. The 1 in D3) has kametz, because,
according to Delitzsch, a monosyllabic word, or a word which has
the tone on the penult (such as a segholate noun), when it imme-
diately precedes a word with athnach, takes kametz in the syllable
before the tone. See Lev. xviii. 5; Prov. xxv. 3; Isa. Ixv. 17.

24. DO PX, 30 7 must not be taken interrogatively, inas-
much as it implies a direct affirmation in the negative. The interro-
gative would require 240 yba, Hence the Vulg. “ xonne meltus est
comedere et bibere, etc.,” is incorrect. The translation of our A. V.
is with slight modifications that approved of by most scholars, But
it requircs a slight alteration to be made in the received Hebrew text.
In place of S28 ΘΝ Ὁ PX we must read Davin OWA Ὁ ΚΝ,
As the text stands, it must be rendered, “27 és not good among men
that one should eat and drink and that hts soul should see good, etc.,”
which would be directly contrary to chap. ill. 12, 13; vill. 15. Some
have proposed with the Targ. and Syr. to insert ON 'D before the
verb, after the analogy of the latter passage: But & DN "5 is scarcely

Ch. ii. 24,251 Cretical and Grammatical Comm. 57

Hebrew. It is better with Ewald, Hitzig and Delitzsch to insert
the simple 1 after the analogy of chap. iii, 22, D782 is not,
however, to be regarded with Hitzig (and our A.V. “jor a man”) as
indicating the object or purpose, but more simply, with Delitzsch
(after the analogy of D3 210 ]°S, chap. iii. 12, and that of ΝΞ ΠΡΟ,
2 Sam. Χχχίϊ, 3), as signifying “among men.” It is interesting,
observes the latter scholar, to see how the usages of the older and
the later language appear here side by side, without the former
passing altogether over into the latter. Thus, after bossy, quam
ut edat, normal perfects follow, according to that peculiarity of the
old syntax which Ewald once very suitably termed the fading off of
the coloured into grey.

ΔΘ. 7 NN MIT is the same as 2°, Ps, xlix. 19, and is the
causative of the phrase found in chap. ili. 13, or of that found
in chap. ν. 17; vi. 6.—Deditzsch. Koheleth commends in this verse
as best for man, not a lazy life of pleasure (note especially the
significant addition boy) but a life which duly combines work and
pleasure, a life in which a man eats and drinks and enjoys whatever
work it may be his lot to perform. This power, however, to enjoy
the ordinary pleasures of life, which are common to man, and to find
pleasure in his daily task is, the writer notes, a gift from the hand of
God.

25, MDD yin vin’ 1. ~The traditional text has here ‘31, But
Ewald and Delitzsch are certainly right in reading, with the Syr.
and many MSS., 13. The sentence, ‘‘ Who can eat and can enjoy
himself better than £?” would be a most lame conclusion here, and it
is highly questionable whether that meaning could be extracted from
the Hebrew phrase [9 7, which means properly outside of, apart
Srom, except, without, equivalent to the Chald. 5 72. On the other
hand the thought, “who can eat and who can enjoy himself without
Him?” 7.e. God, is one which would naturally follow that of the
preceding verse. Man even in the commonest matters is absolutely
dependent on the will of a higher power. Hoelemann has lately
sought to interpret the passage as a penitential confession on the pait
of Solomon. We cannot coincide with his interpretation, and if
true it would not tell much in favour of the traditional theory as
tothe authorship of the work,

‘The verb tim! is translated by the LXX. and Syr. by drink. But
‘the rendering cannot be justified. Ewald is inconsistent with him-

Z

338 The Book of Koheleth. [Ch. ii, 25-iii. 1.

self. In his translation he gives “enjoy” (geniessen) as the interpre-
tation of the word, but in his notes he approves of the rendering of
the LXX. and Syr., connecting the Hebrew with the Arab. L.x=
i zo sip, or sup. But the verb in question does not appear in

Hebrew. 4M, in the sense of Aasten, is tolerably frequent, and Dale
would translate here after the A.V. “who can hasten (thereunto).”
But what is more to the point is that the verb ΕΠ (and ἘΠ) occurs
in Chald. and in Talmudic, in the sense of to think over, to reflect on,
to suffer (prop. to experience). See Levy’s Weuhed. 1V.B. The Rabb.
LAN is also used for sense, as EYON LUNN, the sense of taste, pl, DIN the
(five) senses. So Arab. τς pl. alee Aquila and Symm.
(according to Field) translate φείσεται, which reading has crept
into MSS. of the LXX.

26. Damm DI, The reference in “this ‘also ἐξ vanity” seems to
be to the collecting and heaping together of riches by the sinner just
mentioned, The author returns to the point touched on before. The
“this” can scarcely refer to the striving after enjoyment in, and through
means of, work (Deditssch); because that striving, though spoken of in
verse 24, is too remote. The writer does not (as Knobel thinks) refer
to the arbitrary distribution of good from the hand of God, for such
cannot be described as “a striving after wind”; nor (as Bullock)
to the gifts of God to the righteous, as well as to “the travail of the
sinner”; for the gifts of God, though they may in some respects
come under the description of “ vanity,” cannot be spoken of as "a,
striving after wind.”

CHAPTER III.

1. Time and season (Τὴ jt) are here contrasted. The former
designates rather the point of beginning, the latter the period
embraced by the event or matter spoken of. The former is the
more general appellation for time, the latter points out rather a
special season or portion of time. The LXX. expresses the first by
χρόνος, the second very suitably by καιρός. Καιροὶ καὶ χρόνοι is the
rendering of the LXX. and Theod. in Dan. ii. 21, δ 25) 82, The
words occur in the reverse order in Acts i. 7; 1 Thess. vy. 1. Comp.
the use of the sing. in the LXX. transl. of Dan. vii. r2 (119) Π2 7 19),
The Targ. uses in the present passage 8)W!) 821, There may pos-

Ch. iti 1,2.) Critical and Grammatical Commi. 339

sibly be a reference to this verse in Wisdom viii. 8, where the writer
says of wisdom that she foreseeth ἐκβάσεις καιρῶν καὶ χρόνων “ the
events of seasons and times.’ The derivation of MY is a matter of
uncertainty, as it may be regarded either as a contraction of ΠῚ
from the stem Ἵ") Ξ Ἴ), or of ΠΡ, Ezra iv. 10, from a stem 72¥,
Talm, ΣΙ,

Koheleth seems to return in this chapter to the thought expressed
in chap. i, and points out that there are laws made by a higher
power than that of man which regulate human actions; which actions,
though in many cases the result of free agency, are, considered as a
whole, under the control and guidance of that God who is over all
and conditions all things.

On YSN see Glossary.

2, ΠΡ ny would naturally signify @ time fo bear, and, since the
verb is used not only of bearing or bringing forth, but also of be-
getting (Gen. iv. 18 and Ps. ii. 7), it might be translated generally “a
time to have children.” If this be so, the writer begins his catalogue
of the times and seasons of man with the season of full maturity, with
which he contrasts the season of death. ‘Those, who at one time
give life to others, at another have themselves to yield to the ὯΝ of

death. So LXX. καιρὸς τοῦ τεκεῖν. Syr., obscurely, λῆς ne

though most probably referring only to the mother. The Targ. also
takes the word in the active sense, but translates it, contrary to the

usage of the language, by mp, fo Rill, “There is a time to beget
sons and daughters, and a time to kill disobedient and blasphemous
children.” The active meaning of the verb is upheld by Knobel,
Hitzig, and others. Hitzig and Zockler argue in support of this opinion
that 5M denotes a conscious or intentional purpose ; but, as Delitzsch
justly remarks the bab “ for everything,” which stands at the begin-
ning of the verse, comprehends both doing and suffering, and death
itself (apart from suicide, which is certainly not referred to) is not an
intentional act, but an event very frequently encountered in a state
of unconsciousness. The infinitive active is sometimes, though
rarely, used in a passive signification. So mand, Jer. xxv. 34. See
Ewald, ὃ 304 ¢ Delitzch observes that ay, which is properly an in-
finitive active, is used in Hosea ix. 11, in the sense of dirt, and
that in Assyrian @i-7d-¢u, li-i-fu, Ui-da-a-tu means “offspring.” Hence

340 The Book of Koheleth. [Ch. ili. 2-4.

it is quite possible to render the clause with Ewald, Ginsburg,
Delitzsch, ete, “a time to be born,” and the contrast contained in
the other clause, ‘‘and a time to die,” is possibly more in favour of
this rendering, although no instance can be cited in which the inf.
active of this particular verb is used in a passive sense.

By the time to plant (nub NY) the season.of planting or sowing is
indicated, and the time of the harvest is not obscurely pointed out
under the expression, ‘‘a time to pull up that which is planted.”
The form NYO only occurs here; the form YD), or 922, occurs four
times, Isa. li. 163; Jer. i. 10; xvili. ἡ; xxxi. 28.

3. “A time to kill” probably refers to the execution of individual
offenders and not to slaying in war, for the time of war is mentioned
afterwards in verse 8. Hahn has endeavoured to explain these
“times and seasons” spiritually. ὙΠ in verse 1 is rendered by him
desire, and applied to the efforts of those who seek after righteousness.
Hence birth is interpreted of moral regeneration, and death of the
death of ‘the old man”; the planting of the previous verse is under-
stood spiritually in reference to the heart, and the uprooting to signify
the destruction of the plants of evil ; the killing similarly is explained
of the mortification of sin (Rom. vii. 4); the healing is supposed to
mean recovery from the sickness of sin, εἰς, This exposition, how-
ever, does violence to the obvious sense of the passage. Its complete
novelty is a proof of its want of any solid foundation on which to
rest. No other interpreters before Hahn have sought thus to explain
the passage, nor has he had (as far as we know) any followers in this
peculiar line of exposition.

The “times and the seasons” spoken of are those appointed for
human actions and human purposes; such times are all arranged by,
and under the control of, God who is above. The Ruler of men,
the Most High has appointed death as the punishment for certain
offences. He has also imparted to man a knowledge of the art
of healing as well as of husbandry and agriculture. Compare
on the former, Exod. xvi. 26; Deut. xxxil. 39; Hosea vi. 1; Isa.
xxxvill, 21; and on the latter, Isa, xxviii, 23-29. For similar
expressions used metaphorically, see Ps. xliv. 3; Ixxx. 3, 4, 13, 143
Jer. xxiv. 6. See our remarks on pp. 187 ff.

4. Compare on this verse, Luke vi. 21; John xvi. 20.

On mourning as appointed by God, see Zech. xi. ro, and Matt.
ix. 14, 15. Dancing was made use of on occasions of festivities, and

Ch. iii, g-7.] Critical and Grammatical Comin, 341

occasionally in religious festivals. On the manner and times of
dancing, see the Biblical Dictionaries.

5. 70 throw away stones (B28 sown) has probably reference to
the marring of fields and rendering of them unfit for agicultural
purposes by casting stones on them. The Israelites acted thus in the
land of Moab (2 Kings iii. 25), ‘and upon every good portion they
cast every one his stone” (228 WN savoury, By the gathering
together of stones the author probably refers to their being collected
together with the intention of removing them from the fields. Com-
pare Isa. v. 2. Some have supposed that our Lord alludes to this
passage in Mark xiii. 2, but it is scarcely probable. Zéckler maintains
that “‘¢o throw away stones” in this passage is equivalent to ΔῈ in
Isa. ν. 2; Ixii. ro, and has reference to the throwing of them away
from the fields. He has forgotten, however, that the exact phrase
occurs in the opposite meaning in 2 Kings. The expression “20
collect stones” might refer to the purposes of building; but the
connexion in which the expression here occurs is in favour of the
general interpretation.

PAN seems to be used here, as in Prov, v. 20, without any special
reference to women, but to mean any affectionate embraces of men by
men. Compare its use in Gen. xxix. 13; xlvili. ro. The thought
of the writer is that there is a time for the manifestation of friend-
ship and a time to refrain from all such manifestations. Compare
the arrangement made by Jonathan with David (1 Sam. xx. 19-22),
which, however, accidental circumstances permitted afterwards to be
modified (verses 37-41). :

6. The seeking in this passage has reference to the search after
riches and honour, or after such things as are commonly sought by
men. That which is sought carefully is often lost again, 2% piel
is used generally in the sense of destroy, and so even in chap. vii. 7.
This is its older signification. In the signification of ¢o lose it is
found only in this passage. Its use, however, in the latter signifi-
cation is very common in later Hebrew. See Levy, Neuhed.
W.B., 5.ν.

7. “A time to rend and a time to sew.” In the former the reference
is to the rending of garments in token of sorrow (Gen. xxxvil. 29;
2 Sam. xiil. 31). Knobel thinks there is an allusion in the passage
to the Jewish practice of sewing up the rent made in token of sor-

342 The Book of Koheleth. (Ch. iii. 7-11.

row, at the conclusion of the days of mourning. Herzfeld, however,
doubts whether the latter custom (not that of the vending of garments,
as Ginsburg supposes him to refer to) can be traced as far back as
the days of Koheleth.

With respect to the time for silence here spoken of, note the
silence of the Psalmist under deep sorrow (Ps. xxix. 2, 9), the long-
protracted silence of Job and his friends (Job ii. 13), and that of the
servants of Hezekiah in z Kings xviii. 36. On times for boldly
speaking out, compare Isa. lviii. 1; Acts xviii. 9. Compare too
Prov. xxvi. 4, 5.

8. The time to hate and the time to love probably correspond
with the times of war and peace in the next clause. In time of war,
whatever secret love one may have towards the enemies with whom
he may contend in battle, must practically be laid aside. Is it
impossible that this verse formed the basis of the saying of ‘‘the men
of old” referred to by our Lord in Matt. v. 43? Compare also Luke
xiv. 26.

Renan has printed this catalogue of “times and seasons” (verses
2-8) as if it were a quotation made by the writer from some earlier
source. But there appears little in favour of that view.

Comp. Marc. Aurelius, xii. 23, τὸν δὲ καιρὸν καὶ τὸν ὅρον δίδωσιν ἡ
φύσις.

το. The 1¥, or troublesome business, which God has given to man
is, that he must work under the conditions prescribed for him by
these “seasons and times,” which like other “times and seasons”
referred to by our Lord (Acts i. 7), are appointed by Divine authority
and power. Man is conditioned ‘by this constant change of times
and circumstances which he cannot alter. The acts of man, like
those of nature, must be again and again repeated. As in nature
(chap. i.) so in human affairs, all things seem to move in a circle.
From a higher standpoint there may be progress and a steady
advance towards some end which finite understanding cannot grasp,
though it is ever striving to do so. From the lower plain on which
the ordinary observer has to stand (however great minds may, by the
erection of some mighty pyramid of science, elevate themselves a
little), there often seems to be little or no progress, and sometimes
even progress in the wrong direction,

11. See remarks in chap. vii, pp. 188 and 194 ff. Hoelemann
considers the author to refer to the Divine statement in reference

Ch. iii tr] = =Cretical and Grammatical Commi. 343

to the creation recorded in Gen. i. 31. He thinks that the writer
suggests the idea that the work of creation is still going forward,
and that ultimately (1NY2) even the sorrows of humanity will be
found among the things which are truly beautiful. As a suitable
parallel to the thought of Koheleth here, compare Milton’s Paradise
Lost, Book ii. 146-8 :—
“Sad cure! for who would lose
Though full of pain, this intellectual being,
These thoughts that wander through eternity.”

The noun pbap j is rendered by the ancient translators (LXX. αἰών,

Syr. ads, Vulg., mundus) by the world,and so our A.V. The word
has this meaning in later Hebrew, but it is nowhere found in such
a signification in the Biblical language. See note 1, p. 196, and our
comm. on chap. ix. 6. DOW occurs in five other passages in Kohe-
leth (nowy, chap. i. 4; il. 165 iil, 143 ix. 63 wy chap. xii. 5).
Gaab and Spohn take ney in the sense of wxderstanding, and so
Hitzig reading nby, Arab. ic. No such word, however, exists in

either Bibl. Heb., nor have examples of it. been found in Chald.,
Syr., or Rabb. Heb. Graetz translates the word by zgnorance (the

stem ΟΡ signifying to comceaZ). But neither is the word found else-
where in that sense. It is true that R. Achva bar Zira, as noted in
the Midrash Koheleth, referring to Exod. iii. 15 and to the meaning
of the stem, explains this passage of the concealment from men of the
true pronunciation of the #/NpIN BY, or the Sacred Name 717", The
Targ., with a similar reference to the meaning of the stem, para-
phrases the passage, “and even the day of death He (God) concealed
from them in order that that which shall happen in the end might not
be known to man from the beginning.” But even this rendering
proves the Targumist to have taken the word in its ordinary signifi-
cation, Rab is said (Berach., 43 6) to have explained the passage
to mean that God permits every man to be pleased with his own
special work ; 4.5. the tanner with tanning.

wd awe aban, Sap is used as a conjunction in interrogative
sentences with 4 prefixed, and followed by 1 δὲ, in Exod. xiv. II;
2 Kings i. 3, 6, τὸ; “ts it because that there ἐς (or that there was) not?”
In this verse it is used as a preposition governing YS, in the sense
of “ without that not” (Gr, Ven. ἄνευ τοῦ ὅτι), ND is a word of later

344 The Book of Koheleth. (Ch. iii, 11-14.

Hebrew, for which }2 and mbar are used in the earlier language.
See Glossary.

12. D2 ΔΘ |S corresponds with DJYZ IOs, chap. 11. 24. The
suffix might, however, also refer to the things enumerated before by
the writer. Hoelemann regards the joy spoken of by the writer as
identical with that alluded to by the Apostle in Phil. iv. 4. Man
ought to “rejoice evermore,” in all states, in joy and sorrow, “to
lie passive in God’s hand,” and to submit to His will. But such an
idea is not in accordance with the sentiments elsewhere expressed
by the writer, and forms rather part of that grace brought unto man
by the revelation of Jesus Christ.

aw ney in this verse has been regarded as equivalent to 210 TR)
in the first clause of the next verse, meaning ¢o enjoy good. So
Luther, Knobel, Hitzig, Ginsburg, Delitzsch, and others. But the
ancient versions (the LXX., Syr., Targ., and Vulg.) have understood
it of moral good, and this is the uniform meaning of the expression.
The analogy, therefore, of chap. ii. 24; ili, 22; v. 173 vill. 15 and
ix..7 (in every one of which passages other expressions are made use
of), cannot blind us to the fact that here, where we would least have
expected it, though not as fully as might be desired, Koheleth speaks
of the necessity of morality as forming an essential part of man’s hap-
piness. The statement is a preparation for the conclusion arrived at
in the epilogue of the work (chap. xii. 13, 14). This is the view of the
expression taken by Rosenmiiller, Elster, Vaihinger, Hengstenberg,
and Zéckler. Comp. Ps. xxxiv. 14; xxxvil. 3, 27, etc.

43. 02. But also, adversative. Comp. chap. vi. 7; Neh. v. 8.
The construction of the passage is similar to that in chap. v. 18.

ΝΠ bs, properly, 216 whole of mankind. The expression used
here and in chap. v. 18; xii. 13, signifies ‘every man”; the article
in this case qualifying the genitive, and not, as is more usual,
the governing word. Comp. 7707 npn, a: portion of the field, or in
the example cited by Delitzsch, pyre nang, where the first word is
undetermined, while the second is definite of itself.

pint 59 is here almost like a casus pendens, separated as it is from
its predicate by the { which precedes it (ΟΞ Ὁ),

14. ‘Everything which God does (or ‘will do,” not, as Gins-
burg, “hath made”), it shall be for ever.” Koheleth refers not
to the work of creation, but to the arrangements of Divine Provi-
dence with reference to human actions mentioned in the previous

Ch. iti. 14-17.] Critical and Grammatical Comm. 345

part of the chapter. These exist for ever (ὗν), Ze. man cannot
alter them. Compare on the thought of the passage chap. 1. 4;
Isa, xlvi. 10; Ps. xxxiil. τα. Ben Sira gives a good comment on
the passage when he says (Sir. xvili. 6), “It is not possible to take
from (οὐκ ἔστιν ἐλαττῶσαι οὐδὲ προσθεῖναι), nor to add to, and it is
not possible to track out the wondrous works of the Lord,”

‘wry, fecit ut, as Ezek. xxxvi. 27; ποιεῖν ἵνα, Apoc. xiii. 15;

nab ww, So also chap, viii. 12, ff Compare x Chron, xvi. 30
with Ps. xc. 9.—Delitesch. By fear reverence is here signified.

15. Mmnd WN, That which is to de, in the future, τὸ μέλλον. See
Ges.-Kautzsch, § 132, 3, rem. 1.

ἘΣ ΠΣ = =The article would have been expected here after NX.
But compare abny, chap. vii. 7; Ewald, ὃ 277 4. “2 means literally
that which has been driven away, the departed, the past; Vulg.
“Deus instaurat quod abtit.” God seeks the past, and brings it
again into being. He alone can bring that back which was once past
and gone. This explanation coincides with the previous part of the
verse. The expression, however, only occurs in this passage, and has
been variously explained. Hengstenberg, after the LXX. (ὁ Θεὸς
ζητήσει τὸν διωκόμενον), Aquila, Symm. (with slight variations), Syr.
and Targ., render “ God seeks the persecuted.” This idea does not
fall in with the context. The Gr. Ven. renders literally, ὁ Θεὸς ζητήσει
τὸ ἀπεληλαμένον. So most modern scholars, In Arabic a synonyme of a

word is technically called its 84} res and the expression for syzomy-

mous words is ὅδ Vee Bla. In post-biblical Hebrew 0°87}
signifies syzonymes.

16, ‘WON Dp, the place of judgment, 1.6. in the place where judg-
ment ought to be administered. It is, perhaps, best to regard DPD
as the object after *N°87, The accentuation is not against this view,
as may be seen from a reference to the accentuation in Gen. 1. 1.
Hitzig, Ginsburg, and others regard ‘O as an adverbial accusative of
place, equivalent to D192 (Ges.-Kautzsch, ὃ 118, 1 ; Ewald, ὃ 204 a),
“T saw under the sun, in the place of righteousness, etc.” It is difficult
to harmonise the statements of this verse with the traditional view of
the authorship of the book by Solomon.

17. The DY at the close of the verse is best referred to God, who
is spoken of in the preceding clause. Comp. Gen. xlix. 24. It

346 The Book of Koheleth. [Ch. iii. 17, 18.

cannot well be regarded as an adverb of time, λει, 1.6, in the day of
judgment (as Vulg. and Targ.). The general sense of the passage is
in either case the same, for in both cases the writer is supposed to
refer to the future judgment. Ewald refers the adverb to past time,
“there is a time for everything, and (=and indeed) a judgment
for every work (done) there” in time past. Houbigant, Hitzig, and
others, propose to read by perf. of pi; the passage then signifying,
“a time for every purpose and for every work hath He (God) ap-
pointed.” But neither the MSS. nor the ancient Versions give any
countenance to this conjecture, all of them being in favour of the tra-
ditional reading. Herzfeld, followed by Fiirst and Vaihinger, leaving
the text as it is, has sought to explain DY as perfect of Dit’, in the
Talmudic sense of est/mating, judging. But, as Delitzsch observes,
the verb in question is construed with the accusative, and not (as in

this passage) with 2 and by and, according to this idea, the thought
of Koheleth must be conceived as here broken in upon, although he
proceeds in the next verse further to develop and expand it. In
later Hebrew the construction with 22 is used indifferently alongside

of by and Ἢ See Ewald, § 217 ὦ

18, 12.0937 by, “ According to the manner of the sons of men.”
Compare Ps. cx. 4; LXX., badly, περὶ λαλιᾶς υἱῶν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου, and
so.the Syriac. Johnston considers (Zyea/tse, p. 128) that the fact

that the expression ΠῚ by only occurs in Ps. cx., outside the Book
of Ecclesiastes, “deserves notice in connexion with the question
of.authorship.”

p13). In order to try them. 3 is the infinitive construct in a,
from the stem 3. Similar examples are 7, Isa. xlv. 1, and ae,
Jer. v. 26. An infinitive from 2 is found in chap. ix. τ. This is
the only instance in which an infinitive const. of this form is found
with suffixes. See Bottcher, Le4rd., ὃ 987, 5 y; Konig, LeArgd.,
§ 34, 2 and 6, pp. 339, 358; Ewald, § 255 @, § 238 ὁ; Ges.-
Kautzsch, § 67, rem. 3. The meaning froze, or ¢vy, given to 3
by the Vulg., Targ., Gesenius (in Z/es.) explorare, is preferable to the
translation of the word by Rosenmiiller and Knobel as dec/erare, or
that assigned by Ginsburg, namely, fo choose. Not much differently

the LXX. ὅτι διακρινεῖ αὐτοὺς ὁ Θεός. Ὁ ΠΌΝΠ is to be regarded as
the subject after the infinitive according to Ges.-Kautzsch, § 133,

Ch. iii. 18-20.] Crztical and Grammatical Comune. 347

2, 3, and rem. at the end. See also Ewald, ὃ 309 a. Compare
avqox ay end (Eze. ix. 8).

ming, And in order that they may see. The LXX., Syr. and Vulg.
translate this as hiphil (ΠΝ) = nie), which reading is approved
by Ginsburg ; the Masoretic reading is rightly preferred by Delitzsch.

“Dn, Delitzsch notes that the Frankfort cod. reads ont’, as
mentioned in Michlol, 216 a. i] may be regarded as the copula,
Ges.-Kautzsch, 8121, 2. Ewald regards the accumulation of pro-
nouns in this passage as a sort of ironical gradation, like Lat.
ipstssimi, § 315 a. 91) seems purposely introduced because of its
alliteration with 1203. This play upon words, remarks Delitzsch,
musically accompanying the thought, remains, even if 497 be con-
nected with the pm immediately following, as in the Frankfort MS.,
which exhibits the accentuation od non mena on’, The pnd is
rightly explained by him to be the dative of relation, as in Gen.
xvii. 20 (ONUDUAD), Ps, iii, 3, etc.

19. ™P occurs three times in this verse. In the first two cases
the LXX. have regarded it as the construct (™?) governing
the word following the genitive. It is better, however, with the
Masorites, the Targ., etc., to regard the word as the predicate in all
three cases. On the thought of the verse compare Ps. xlix. 13, 21,
and the words of Solon to Croesus, πᾶν ἐστι ἄνθρωπος συμφορή
(Herod. i, 32). See our remarks on the allusion to this passage in
the Book of Wisdom, on p. 68 ff. Bottcher, De Lnferis, Ὁ. 246,
regards the expression as adverbial, in which case the similarity
between this passage and Wisdom ii. 2 is more close. But we prefer
to render it uniformly as the predicate.

The writer does not affirm, as Hitzig imagines, that men and
beasts are the results of mere “blind chance,” nor does he mean
simply to affirm that both are subjected to the same law of transitori-
ness (Elster, Zéckler), but rather that mankind, being conditioned by
circumstances over which there can be no control, are subject in
respect to their whole being, actions and sufferings, as far as mere
human observation can extend, to the law of chance, and are alike
destined to undergo the same fate, 2.4. death.

20. See our remarks on p. 44, and on pp. τοί ff.

av Spa, a’ is the participle active, corresponding to ἨΠῚΠ in
the first clause of the verse,

348 The Book of Koheleth. (Ch. iii. 21-iv. 1.

21. See our remarks on p. 190 ff. The 7 in γονῇ and in NYO
was not designed by the Masorites to represent the interrogative,—
the 1 in the first word being lengthened into 7 before the ¥, as it is
lengthened in three cases before δὲ, Judges xii. 5; vi. 31; Num. xvi.
22. See Ges.-Kautzsch, § 100, 4, rem., and especially Stade, Ze70.,
§ 175 @. Kalisch, however, cites this passage as an instance of the
interrogative, ὃ xx. 4a. Geiger (Urschrift, pp. 175, 176), Instances
the pointing of this text, and that of Ps. xlix. 12, as intentional altera-
tions of the text for dogmatic purposes, In the latter passage the
LXX., Targ. and Syr. read D73P, “ their grave is their house for ever,”
in place of the Hebrew pointed text, “their inward thought (227?)
is that their houses shall be for ever.” But see Delitzsch’s Comm.
on the Psalms on the latter passage.

22. ‘2 mw, See note on ch, ii. 1, and on ΠΡ, Ges.-Kautzsch,
§ 37.

CHAPTER IV.

ἀν TNT Mar, This is the second instance of the νὰν
consec. found in the book. Lit. 7 returned and saw, te, I saw
again. The same phrase occurs in verse 7. See on construction,
Ges.-Kautzsch, ὃ 142, 3 a,rem.; Ewald, ὃ 285 a; Kalisch, § 103, 2.
Comp. also ch. ix. rr. AND MAL

ΡΣ, In the first instance in which this word occurs in this
verse it signifies oppresstons, and it is used in this sense in Job
xxxv. 9 and Amos iii. 9. It is properly the participle passive used
abstractively, the plural number denoting the many individual cases
which are combined in the one idea. See Bottcher, Zehrd., ὃ 698.
It is construed here with the plural DY) WN, but this need not
be regarded as strange, seeing, as Delitzsch notes, that even ΘΠ is
construed (as in Ps, xxxi. 113 Ixxxvili. 4), with a plural predicate.
The LXX. and Syr. have in their translations noted correctly the
difference in meaning of the word in the two clauses of the verse.
But Ginsburg, after Symmachus (who translates in both places ἢ
by τοὺς συκοφαντουμένους), with Herzfeld and others, renders the word
in both clauses alike by ‘che oppressed.” Hence he is driven to
translate DY'YITN'N by those “who are suffering” (literally, ‘ zho
were made so”); but this latter rendering cannot be regarded as
correct.

Ch. iv. 1-3.) Crettcal and Grammatical Comm. 349

nyo. Used collectively. Rosenmiiller quotes Cicero, De
Partit., vii. 17, “cito arescit lacryma preesertim in malis alienis.”
A more suitable comparison is Isaiah xxv. 8, ΠΡῸΣ by nv,
unitated in Rev. xxi. 4.

The expression 13 ὉΠ 7D is somewhat peculiar. It is to
be connected with the preceding 737. The Vulgate, viewing the
clause as affected by the ['S in the preceding sentence, has rendered,
“nec posse reststere eorum violentie.” But the repetition here of the
thought previously expressed is more in accordance with the usage
of the writer. Comp. ch. i. 6; ii. 10; iii. 16. 3 is always used in
the signification of power and not in that of violence.

2. Nava, Knobel and others explain this form as the participle
piel shortened from M3, after the analogy of the participle pual,
in which the of the participle is sometimes dropped, See Ges.-
Kautzsch, § 52, rem. 6; Kalisch, ὃ xliv. 1, 7. But Delitzsch maintains
that the 9 of the participle piel is not dropped; the only example
being 1, Zeph. i. 14; but in that passage et festinanter valde is the
same as δέ festinanter valde veniens, the adverb being virtually an
adjective. Herzfeld considers the form a verbal adj. like }$2. This
seems to be the view of Kimchi, who says (AZich/ol, 58 δ), “it is an
adjective instead of a participle.” The question is treated most fully
by Konig, Ζελγρεῦ., § 32, 5, Ὁ. 292. It is only the rareness of the
construction which has made scholars consider the form which occurs
here as the participle. But the form is‘unquestionably that of the inf,
absolute, which is used in continuing a narrative, the pronoun being
here added as the subject of the verb. Ewald (§ 351 c) quotes an
exact parallel, 87 715021, Esth. ix. 1. Compare also Prov. xvii. 12.
See Ges.-Kautzsch, § 131, 4, rem. 1; Olshausen (§ 249 @) would
correct the text to Mav%, mI, vid. glossary, 5. 11}.

On the subject of the verse, comp. ch. vil. 1; Job il. 13 ff See
our remarks on p. 150. Knobel cites as parallels, Herod. i. 31.
διέδειξέτε . . . ὁ Θεὸς, ὡς ἄμεινον εἴη ἀνθρώπῳ τεθνάναι μᾶλλον ἢ
ζώειν, and Menander, ζωῆς πονηρᾶς θάνατος αἱρετώτερος.

4. 1 YWN ΠΝ, The accusative here is governed by ΠΞῸἿ in
the preceding verse. The LXX. (ὅστις οὔπω. ἐγένετο), Syr., Gr. Ven.
regard it as the subject, M8 being sometimes, though rarely, used
to give prominence to the subject of the sentence (see Bottcher,
Lehrb., § 516). But the former is the simpler explanation.

350 The Book of Koheleth. [Ch. iv. 3-5.

v}} has always the double kametz, except in Ps. liv. 7; Mic.
vii. 32. Delitssch.

Many classical parallels to the idea expressed in this verse could
be quoted. Thus Theognis, 425-428.

: ee ee j 3
πάντων μὲν μὴ φῦναι ἐπιχθονίοισιν ἄριστον
4 ‘3
μηδ᾽ ἐσιδεῖν αὐγὰς ὀξέος ἠελίον"
φύντα δ᾽, ὅπως ὦκιστα πύλας ᾿Αἴδαο περῆσαι᾽

καὶ κεῖσθαι πολλὴν γῆν ἐπαμησάμενον.

Or Sophocles, Gd. Col. 1225-1228.

μὴ φῦναι τὸν ἅπαντα νικᾷ λόγον" το δ᾽, ἐπεὶ φανῇ
βῆναι κεῖθεν ὅθεν περ ἥκει,
πολὺ δεύτερον, ὡς τάχιστα.

So also Cicero, Zuse., i. 48, where the. sentiment is ascribed to
Silenus, ‘“‘ Non nasci homini longe optimum esse ; proximum autem
τ primum mori.”

ΟΣ. Vid. Glossary.

Koheleth does not deny that labour and toil effect something
for man, but he observes that the superior excellence of the work
performed arises in most cases from the envious desire on the part of
a man to surpass his fellows. Consequently he asserts that there is
in general no lasting good attained by the individual worker. Man,
however, is compelled to labour; for, although toil produces little
result, idleness proves the ruin of an individual. M8? is active in
meaning, and signifies exvy, zealousy. Our A.V. departs, in its trans-
lation, widely from the sense of the original, “I considered all
travail, and every right work, that for this a man is envied of his
neighbour.” The ambiguity of the expression “right work” has
led to the passage being expounded by Bridges, Young, Bp. Words-
worth, and others, to mean that “for dotng right multitudes have
been envied and persecuted.” But Koheleth does not refer in the
passage to moral rectitude, but to superiority in work or workmanship,
Gesenius, in Zhes., regards T83P to mean an object of envy, and
so Vaihinger. The latter renders 1027), defore his fellow, but “the
i2 is evidently comparative, like \) ΛΝ, Ps, xviii. 18, etc., emulatio
qua unus pre altero emimere studet.”—Delitzsch.

5. “The fool foldeth his hands together,” in slothfulness and

Ch.iv.s.) Critecal and Grammatical Comm. 351

sleep” (Prov. vi. 103; xxiv. 33), instead of working as he ought.
He destroys himself by his own laziness, “ eats his own flesh.”
Ginsburg has strangely interpreted the aphorism, “ The sluggard
foldeth his hands and yet eateth his meat,” as if he considered
Koheleth to contrast the enjoyment of the easy sluggard with
the toilsome labour of the envious. Ginsburg maintains that
“awa Soy, to eat meat, is frequently used in Scripture as indicative
of an ample and delicate repast.” In proof of this he refers to
Exod. xvi. 8 ; xxi, 28 ; Isa. xxii, 13; Ezek. xxxix.17. In all of these
passages, however, the eating of flesh is contrasted with the use of
other food, and in none of the examples cited is the phrase equi-
valent to “eating his meat” (or, “his food”), in the English sense
of that expression. Ginsburg has been incautiously followed by
Plumptre, It is true that the Hebrew phrase is not used in the
sense condemned by Plumptre, that is, of ‘pining away under the
corroding canker of envy and discontent,” as Gesenius suggested

in Zhes. (s.v. bow), comparing 1]. vi. 202, ὃν θυμὸν κατέδων, Plaut.,
Trucul., 2, 7, 36, “quisnam illic homo est, qui ipsius se comest,
tristis oculis malis.” Gesenius says that such a person is called in

Arab. dtd ΚΊ, but he has quoted no examples of this usage.

Plumptre is justified in saying that we have no authority for this
in the language of the Old Test. But Gesenius stands almost
alone in such an interpretation. ‘The other interpreters regard the
phrase as equivalent to “ destroys himself.” Instances of similar
Arab. phrases in the latter sense may be seen in Lane, Avad. Lex.
The phrase “" ἐσ eat men,” and “‘ to eat the flesh of men,” is found in
Arabic in the sense of defamation of character. The meaning of
the expression in Koheleth is sufficiently explained by the Psalmist
when he speaks of his enemies as coming upon him “to eat up his
flesh ” (Ps. xxvii. 2), or by Micah who speaks of those who “ eat
the flesh of my people” (Micah iii. 3). Zechariah speaks of the
evil, or worthless shepherd (not “idol shepherd,” see my Bampton
Lectures, p. 346 ff), who devoured the flesh of the Jewish flock
(Zech. xi, 16), in contrast with the true Shepherd. This usage is
in direct accordance with the denunciation (Isaiah xlix. 26), “I will
feed them that oppress thee with their own flesh.” The simple
meaning of Koheleth is that the indolent by their indolence feed
upon their own flesh and destroy themselves.

to

55 The Book of Koheleth. [Ch. iv. 6.

6. There is no difficulty as to the translation of this passage. Its
meaning has, however, been strangely misconceived by some ex-
positors. Plumptre describes it as expressing the thought which
might be conceived “as rising in the mind of an ambitious statesman
or artist striving after fame, as he looks on the dolce fur niente of a
azzarone at Naples, half-naked, basking in the sun, and revelling in
the enjoyment of his watermelon. The one would at such a time
almost change place with the other, but that something after. all
forbids.” Mendelssohn and others consider the passage to con-
tain a dialogue between the industrious man and the sluggard, the
fifth verse being the statement of the industrious, and the present verse
the reply of the lazy. Similarly Hitzig explains verse 5 as containing
an objection, to which verse 6 supplies the answer. Zdckler coincides
in the main with Hitzig. The latter critic: considers that the writer
is probably citing a proverb in verse, while Renan looks upon verse 5
altogether as a quotation. Delitzsch calls attention to the fact that
nh) does not mean the rest of laziness, but-rest in contrast with that
excessive occupation in business, that hunting after gain and honour,
which can never be satisfied, and which impels a man unceasingly
to strain every effort in order to overtop and outrival his fellows.
The rest which Koheleth commends is a quiet stillness (chap. ix. 11),
and a cessation from the toil which man imposes upon himself, and
which ultimately proves his destruction (Isa. xxx. 15). Thus the two
verses are not opposed to one another. In the former, the author
notes how the fool consumes by idleness his own vital powers ;
while in the latter he observes that a little real rest is better than all
the results achieved by that striving occasioned merely by the spirit
of rivalry and jealousy which permits a man to take no rest, and yet
ends in nothing. ‘“ Better ἐς the full of a hand” (43, the flat open
hand), weth rest, than the full of two (bent) hands with toil and
striving after wind.’ 05 occurs in Biblical Heb. only in the

dual; the singular JBM is not found in Hebrew, but occurs in Chal-
oO » -“ο-

dee, 825", Syr. ἰλθαν, Arab. τὰ Assyr. huppunnu, the fist, the

closed-up hand. ὙΠ), Spy, and O17 Miy), are all accusatives of respect.

See Ges.-Kautzsch, § 118, 3; Kalisch, § 86, 44; ΝΟ is a noun fol-
lowed in each of the two clauses by a genitive.

Knobel suitably compares the saying of Publius Syrus, ‘quam
felix vita, que sine negotiis transigit !”

Ch. iv. 8-11.) Cretecal and Grammatical Conn. 353

8. WPS. pS here has almost the meaning of wthoul. De-
litzsch compares "BDI PR, Ps, civ, 253 cv. 34.

On MS}, for which, with the conjunctive accent, we would have
expected ΠῚ (as in Prov. xvii. 17 with merca), compare Ds) with
kadma as contrasted with DN) Hosea xi. 4. Delitzsch also compares
iNS), chap. ii. 7, with mahpach, and on the contrary, chap. ii. 23,
by3) with pashta.

‘The correction in the K’ri of YY into 12% is occasioned by the
following verb (vabn-wd) being singular. When the reference is
made to things, not persons (the pluralis inhumanus), the verb is
frequently used in the singular. Vid. Ges.Kautzsch, ὃ 146, 5;
Kalisch, § 77, 9.

2 ὙΤΝ IN}, On the const. compare Ps. viii. 6. Renan sup-
poses that the author refers here to his own personal circumstances,
but no solid reason can be assigned for this opinion.

For classical parallels, comp. Juvenal, Saz, xiv. 139; Horat., Od.,
ii. 13, 14. See our remarks on the passage at p. 206.

9. The article in 5°07 refers to two persons such as are alluded
to in the previous verse, and the article in ἽΠΝΠ is used to denote
one individual like the person who is there more fully described.

Io. YEON, taken partitively, wen one-or the other. Knobel
compares the formula, amy DAS TION (Gen, xi. 33 Judg. vi. 29,
etc.).

rN, for Ὁ 81, and woe to him! qo, woe to thee! chap. x. 16.
The Masora magna notes that there are five cases in which munach
and rebhia occur together on one word, namely, Gen. xlv. 5 ; Exod.
xxxil. 31; Zech. vii. 14; Eccl. iv. 40; Dan. i. 7. Graetz, after the
Targ., would explain YN as the later Hebrew ‘8. The latter
occurs in this book in chap. vi. 6. The meaning would then be
“and when.” But the LXX., Syr., Vulg. are in favour of the tra-
ditional punctuation. TANT in the clause JANN yw, is in appo-
sition to the suffix preceding, as in Ps. lxxxvi. 2 in a less appropriate
manner. It is not necessary to repeat the preposition in apposition.
See Gen. ii. το; ix. 4. Exceptions sometimes occur, such as Ps.
xviii. σα; Ixxiv. 14.—Delitasch.

11, The passage evidently refers to the sleeping together of
two friends for mutual warmth and comfort in the winter season.

AA

354 The Book of Koheleth. [Ch. iv. 11-14.

Delitzsch notes that (in the Aboth of R. Nathan, chap. viii.) sleeping
with a person is regarded as a sign of friendship. ond om used
impersonally, “i ἐς warm to them,” i.e. “ they are warm.” Comp.
Job ii. 13; Isaiah xlix. 20.

12. IBPM for NBN, Job xv. 25. Compare, 21)" Hosea viii. 3.
See Ges.-Kautzsch, § 60, rem. 2. Konig, Zehrgeb., § 29, 2, p- 224.
Ewald, § 249 ὁ. The verb 9PM is probably used here in the sense
of to make an attack on. Others take it in sense of prevail against,
in the A.V., sé guispiam prevaluerit contra unum, regarding the
suffix as pleonastic, and 787 as the accusative. Graetz and many
expositors, after the Syr. and Targ. také INST as the subject
(Graetz reads, O5PN'); but it is better, with. Knobel and Delitzsch,
to regard it as the object, as a permutative referring to the previous
suffix, as Exod. ii, 3, ἼΦΠΓΤΙΝ INNA),

13. There is no necessity to suppose that Koheleth had in view
any particular historical incident, such as that of Joseph in Egypt,
Saul and David, Jeroboam and Rehoboam. These and many other
parallels have been adduced by various commentators, but none of
them are quite satisfactory. Graetz refers. the incident in this and
following verses to Herod and his son Alexander, whom the Jews
wished to have as king. But it is more probable, inasmuch as
similar instances are so common in history, that Koheleth speaks
here in general terms.

14. O07 ΓΞ is no doubt for oOND n°, which reading is
found in some MSS. of Kennicott. Compare 01), 2 Chron. xxii. 5,
in place of DYDIND, found 2 Kings viii. 28. See Gesenius, Zehrg.,
p- 3773; Ewald, § 73 ¢ Stade (Zefrd., § 112 w) regards this mode
of writing as phonetic for ΘΠ, Delitzsch notes that the later
Hebrew is fond of the elision of §, as BN = δα AS, ἼΡΟΝ = andy,
In. his Dichter des alt. Bundes, Ewald translates, aus dem Hause der
Niederen, ‘‘ out of the house of the lower (classes),” explaining ODT
as “the cast-off,” after Isa. xlix. 21 (ADI ND), Hitzig takes the
word in the sense of fugztives, referring to Judg. iv. 18, regarding
“the house of fugitives” as a description of Egypt when Jeroboam
fled from the vengeance of Solomon. Both explanations are highly
artificial and improbable. Equally strained is Hitzig’s later expo-
sition in the rqth vol. of Hilgenfeld’s Zettschrift fiir wissenschafel.
Theologie, where the youth is interpreted of David and the old and

Ch. iv. 14, 15.) Critical and Grammatical Comm. 35

cm

foolish king of Saul. Hitzig there explains DYNDA ΓΔ as “ the house
of the escaped,” or estranged, as in Jer. ii. 21; xvii. 13. Hahn has
made a very ingenious but unsuccessful attempt to explain the whole
passage of Messiah’s lowly birth and universal sway. It would be
certainly strange that in a Messianic passage, after mention having
been made of His people as innumerable, there should follow a state-
ment such as “those that come after will not delight in him,” and
still stranger that the usual refrain, “for even this is vanity, etc.,”
should also follow such a pratietiin.

R¥) is to be regarded as a perfect, “ he goes forth,” otherwise the
comparison would be lame, Graetz, however, takes it as future, “he
will go forth to reign,” referring to the hopes the author had, accord-
ing to Graetz’s theory, of Alexander’s succession to the throne of
Herod.

(DID. When even in his kingdom he was born poor,” 1.6.
although he was originally born as a poor individual in the kingdom
of the old and foolish king, over which he now goes forth to rule as
king, It is highly probable that the suffix in inyan3 refers to the
old king, inasmuch as the suffix in AN (verse 15) must refer to him,

The translation given by Ginsburg, “for a prisoner may go
from prison to a throne, whilst a king may become a beggar in his
own kingdom,” must be rejected, because to express such an idea
the imperfect would have been employed. It is very questionable
whether 79 can be taken with Herzfeld in the sense of the Greek
γίγνομαι, to become. No instances can be adduced in which it is
used in this signification.

Renan regards this verse as a quotation, but this is imi: from
the close connexion in which it stands with the preceding verse.

το. The author describes that which usually takes place on such
occasions just as if he had actually beheld it himself. The language
employed is such as could only have been. used by a person living
under one of the great world-monarchies. Hence the subjects of the
einpite are spoken of as ‘tall the living ΠΟ walk Heder the sun.”

participle kal, which Ἰὰ δε is more ect, Compare poh, 15. Slits, 5.
Ewald considers that the expression ἍΜ Π (216 second) refers to the
title MLD (the second), met with in Gen. xli. 43. But in that case
the instance adduced by the author would have to be regarded

356 The Book of Koheleth. [Ch. iv. 15, 16.

as distinct from that brought forward in verses 13, 14. The use of
the word aby shows, however, that the same person is referred to in
both places. The youth described as coming out of prison to reign
could not be described as “the second ” person in the kingdom; not
at least in the sense in which that expression is used in the Book of
Genesis. Hitzig and Delitzsch are, therefore, correct in regarding
the “ young man” a) as termed "20° (¢he second), the king himself
being regarded as the fist. It is true, as Delitzsch writes, that there
is some incorrectness in the expression which has at least the
appearance of referring to two persons, each entitled to the appella-
tion of “youth.” This inaccuracy in diction, he notes, is similar
to that found in Matt. villi. 21, when by ἕτερος τῶν μαθητῶν is meant
“another person, and that one also one of His disciples,” or that in
Luke xxili. 32, ἤγοντο δὲ καὶ ἕτεροι δύο κακοῦργοι σὺν αὐτῷ ἀναιρεθῆναι.
The translation of Ginsburg “the sociable youth” cannot be jus-
tified, and moreover partakes somewhat of the ludicrous. The
preposition DY denotes ‘dy rhe side of.” Koheleth represents the
people as ranging themselves on the side of the youth who has been
raised from low estate to royal dignity. Ewald regards the DY as
a kind of comparative, appealing to the use of OY in chap. il. 16;
vil αι. On the impf. here in the sense of successurus erat, see
Ewald, § 126 ὦ.

16. See remarks on p. 86. paved TION bao, Ewald maintains
that the reference of the writer is to “αὐ those who preceded them,”
ze. the two kings just mentioned. Others, as Gesenius, Rosen-
miiller, and Ginsburg, consider the young king to be the subject of
the verb ("71), and regard ‘325 ΠῚ to convey the sense of ¢o de over.
They translate the clause ‘‘ here ἦς no end to all (the people) over
whom he ruled.” Similarly Delitzsch renders the last words, “at
whose head he was,” comparing the phrase ἘΠ 5 N21 NYT NIT YD,
1 Sam. xviii. 16; so also 2 Chron. i. 10; Ps. Ixviii. 8, ete.

87D, Also, 1.6. notwithstanding all the court paid to him by the
men of his day and gencration—¢hose who come afer, i.e. the men
of a later generation shal? not rejoice in him, for his memory shall
also perish. On 52) compare chap. vi. 7, and see Ewald, ὃ 354;
Ges.-Kautzsch, §155,2@. ΠΝ Π, Comp. chap. i. rr; Isa. xli. 4,
The events here related do not coincide exactly with any known
incidents of history. The attempts made to explain the passage

Ch. iv. 16,17.] Cretical and Grammatical Comm. 357

as referring to Saul and David, or to Solomon and Jeroboam, or to
Seleucus and Antiochus the Great, all break down when subjected
to close examination. Worst of all, perhaps, is the attempt of
Graetz to trace a reference to the history of the Herodean family.
Hahn considers the passage to be a prophecy of the Messiah,
who was born poor, and came forth from the prison to reign. He
consequently maintains that the expression in verse 15 refers
literally to all those who dwell on the earth. He regards the first
king mentioned in the passage as meant collectively of all the kings
of Israel, from David onwards, compared with whom Messiah is “ the
second,” inasmuch as he founds a second and an everlasting king-
dom. The 16th verse is then regarded as a description of the
hatred exhibited by the ungodly against the Messianic rule. But
the exposition is so manifestly forced, and so opposed to the whole
character of the work, that it is unnecessary to enter upon its
formal refutation.

17. It is almost a matter of indifference whether we follow the
reading of the written text pon (thy feet, plural) or that of the

ΚῊ bn (thy foot, sing.). Both are admissible, compare Ps. exix. 59
and 105, the singular being more common.

By ὈΝΠΟΝΠ ΠΣ the temple may possibly be meant (see note 2,
p- 115), though it is not unlikely the reference is here to the syna-
gogue, inasmuch as the writer speaks of “stenting to preaching,
which was no part of the temple cultus. The priests gave in-
struction to the people on matters of religion (Lev. x. 11; Deut.
xxxill, ro; Mal. ii, 7), but they did not preach or teach at the public
temple services, The cantillation of the Psalms, and the reading of
lessons from the Law and probably also from the Prophets, no doubt
formed a portion of the temple service in the days of Koheleth.
But the passage seems to refer to the ordinary synagogue services
held everywhere throughout the land, The writer affirms that a
diligent listening to the teaching imparted in the synagogue is of
more real value than the “sacrifices” offered up in the temple by
“fools.”

γον amp, Ῥ is inf, abs. kal, not piel, as Olshausen, ὃ 249 ὦ, and
Ewald, § 240 ὦ, maintain. See Konig, Zehrgeb., p. 175. The infinitive
absolute may be used either as an object or subject. See Ewald,
§ 240 a. Bottcher (Wewe Achrenlese, No. 1649) disputes the latter

358 The Book of Koheleth. [Ch. iv. 17.

statement. He renders the clause, “¢ake heed to thy foot whenever
thou goest into God's house, and of drawing near to hear more than
etc.” Delitzsch notes that in that case the words following should
rather have been M2! py>o33 AM, He regards the inf. absol. as
the subject of the sentence, “and fo draw near to hear is (better) than
that the fools should give sacrifice.’ The inf. abs. is used in a wide
manner in Koheleth. Comp. chap. iv. 2.. Owing to the B??’D3n
following, 147? is not to be translated as an imperative. In the
latter case it would be necessary to insert 218 before ΠΏ, as is done
by the Syr. and Vulg. The latter combines two translations, “ et
appropinqua ut audias. Multo enim melior est obedientia quam
stultorum victime.” D> DDA AND is rendered by the LXX., ὑπὲρ
δόμα τῶν ἀφρόνων θυσία σου, and so, substantially, Aquila, Theod..
and Jerome, “donum enim insipientium sacrificium,” reading ΠΕ a
gift instead of NN, yo’ must not be translated “ obey,” as Gins-
burg and Zéckler, and the Vulg. in its second rendering. When the
verb has that signification, words are added to show the sense in
which it is used, or such words can easily be supplied from the
context, as in r Sam. xv. 22.

In the last clause of the verse ¥7 nit) DPT DISD we may read,
after the analogy of chap. ili. 12, vill. 15, ‘yS con 551 poy DD ΤῊΣ,
So Renan, who considers the omission of the words in brackets was
caused by similarity of the ending of the Ὁ)" immediately preceding,
in which case the meaning is “(for they do not know except to do evil.”
The text as it stands is to be explained with Delitzsch, “ they (the
fools) do not know (i.e. they are ignorant, comp. Ps. Ixxxil. 5 ; Isa.
Ivi. 10), 22 order to do evil” =“ so that they do evil.” That is, their
ignorance Jeads them to do evil. This is preferred by Plumptre.
The translation in our A.V., “they consider not that they do evil,” is
substantially that of Elster, Dale, Zockler, Bullock. But, as Delitzsch
notes, this would require YJ OY (comp. Jer. xv. 15). The only
case he remarks which has been adduced to defend the explana-
tion of 7 Mwy> as an accusative with inft, as if se facere malum,
is mand ἸΏ ΤΙΣ Syvi (1 Kings xix. 4) which is not a parallel, for
nie does not there signify se mori but ut moreretur. The transla-
tion of the Vulg. “gue nesciunt quid faciant mali” is still worse.
Herzfeld renders, ‘for they understand not to do evil,” which would
be the most natural translation of the words if they stood alone.

Ch. iv. ty-v.2.] Critical and Grammatical Comm. 359

But his explanation cannot be justified. For he explains ‘‘ they ” to
refer to the subject supposed to be implied in viv, which he renders
zo obey. Hence he assigns the meaning to the passage, “those who
obey commit no sin,” which has been adopted by Ginsburg.

The expression used here, “to give a sacrifice,” is peculiar, and
may possibly have some reference, as Delitzsch has suggested, to
the feasting connected with the offering up of sacrifices. Comp.
Prov. i. 14. 192 is used in connection with saeréfice in Psalm li. 18.

CHAPTER V.

1. The construction of baa with οὐ may suitably be compared
(with Delitzsch) to the German and English construction to fy
upon wings, or to the phrase found in Ps. xv. 3. ib by bn, “to
slander with (lit. upon) his tongue. Delitzsch also compares the
post-Biblical term ΠΡ bay MAI, the oral Jaw. The writer warns
against rash and hasty vows, or professions made carelessly in prayer.
The piel S93 here is intensive, not causative; as Rosenmiiller and
Ginsburg regard it, rendering “do not hasten on thy mouth.” 202 is
used with a reflexive accus. in 2 Chron, xxxv. 21. Compare with
this verse Matt. vi. 7-9.

On Ben Sira’s imitation of the saying, see-on ἢ. 43. In Berachoth,
68 a, it is stated that Rab Huna said in the name of Rab, “ Let the
words of a man be always few (U2) before the Holy One, blessed
be He! according as it is written,” and then follow the words of
Koheleth in this passage. DUI, See Glossary, s.v.

2. “A dream comes (4 is probably the participle indicating the
result of frequent experience) zz (as the consequence of) much
occupation (1.6. bustling about many things), and the voice of a fool in
consequence of many words.” It is difficult in English to render 273
alike in both sentences. A man who is very far from being a fool,
may through much speaking make himself appear for the time being
to be one. Comp. chap. x. 14. Symmachus renders 12} 373 by διὰ
πλῆθος ἀνομίας, reading ἦν, Hitzig and Ginsburg take >YD3 SP as
equivalent to “‘foolesh talk,” but Sepa (as Delitzsch observes) is
always used of living Zersons, never in reference to things.

360 The Book of Koheleth. oe 7

3. The language of this and the next two verses is closely akin
to that in Deut. xxiii, 22-24. On Ben Sira’s imitation of it, see
P- 43-

SAPEN PR. “ There is no pleasure (or delight) zz fools,” namely,
on the part of God. Compare 72 ΠῚΠῸ B13 in Isaiah Ixii. 4. The
idea is far from being “ trivial,” or from being a “ tame anticipation”
of the declaration in verse 5. The Lord first ceases to delight in a
man, and then after long forbearance, gives him over to destruction.
Compare, too, Psalm cxlvil. ro, 11. The translation of Herzfeld,
“keine Bereitwilligkeit ist in den Thoren,” and that of Ginsburg,
approved of by Plumptre, “fools have no fixed will,” are both
opposed to the usage of γ'5Π.

4. W'S 3D. On the use of WS for 3 see Ewald, § 336 a
Knobel refers to the prohibitions of the Talmud (in Tract. Vedarim)
against frequent vows, as sometimes leading men to commit perjury.

5. See p.18. Delitzsch correctly explains this verse in accordance
with the passage in Deut. xxiii. 22, 23 (A. V. 21, 22), upon which it is
manifestly based. The passage in Deut. contains a warning against
rash vows as likely to lead to serious transgression (SON 3 1°11).
But the remark there follows: “if thou shalt forbear to vow, it shall
be. no sin in thee,” 8On 72 Amn}, Similarly in this passage in
Koheleth the meaning is, “ /e¢ not thy mouth cause thee (lit. thy flesh
72¥3, used for the whole personality) 20 siz,” ze. bring thee into
sin, and consequently into punishment. The passage in Job xxxi. 30,
is an exact parallel. The phrase 2 0) with the inf. is there used in
the sense of 2 suffer, to permit, as in this passage and in Judges i. 34,
wig nbya Sew van None ANN, “and Laid not suffer my mouth
(lit. my gums) to sin by cursing his life,” and thus seeking his death.
On the syncopated hiphil infinitive, vid. Ges-Kautzsch, § 53, rem. 7 ;
Kalisch, ὃ xlv. 2d. The idea is not that “the sensuality of man,
is simply excited by the sins of the tongue or the mouth” (Zockler) 4
for, independently of the fact urged by Delitzsch that the formula
“the flesh sins” is not in accordance with Old Test. ideas, a referenca
here to such sins as Zéckler alludes to is quite out of place in this
connexion. ‘Thesin of one member of the body can bring ruin upon
thé whole (comp. Matt. v. 24). The use of 2 is akin to that in
chap. ii. 3; xi. 10; Prov. xiv. 30, Gesenius, in Z/es., rightly refers to
Deut, xxiv. 4; Isa. xxix. 21, and to the present passage, as instances

Chev. 4.1 Cretical and Grammatical Conn. 361

in which 8D) is used in the sense of to make one guilty. Cheyne,
however, disputes the correctness of that rendering in Isaiah xxix.

There is little doubt that the priest 15. meant by the asda
(rendered in our A.V. “216 angel”) in the second clause, and that
‘Dn 50 is equivalent to 138 "BD, Lev. xxvii. 8, τι, although
Mal. ii. 7 is the only other case in which the priest is so termed in
the Old Test, ἼΝΟΟΠ in the passage might also signify the ruler
or Chief Rabbi of the synagogue. Zéckler is right in maintain-
ing that ἄγγελος is used in Rev. i, 20; ii. 1 ff. in ‘essentially the
same signification.” Tayler Lewis, indeed, maintains that the word
is to be taken in its usual meaning ‘tas an angel of God, visible
or invisible, supposed sometimes to appear’ in terror, the avenging
angel, as 2 Sam. xxiv. 16, who came to punish Israel and their king
for his rash words. There may be an express reference here by

Solomon to his father’s fatal error; and the words NA by) may be
rendered very easily as a caution, ‘at thou mayest not have to confess
thine error as David did (2 Sam. xxiv. 17). It must have made a
deep impression on the young mind of the Prince.” It is scarcely
necessary to point out that the writer of Koheleth cannot possibly
refer to any such supernatural appearances ; nor is the idea of the
Targumist possible, that the angel meant is “the avenging angel” in
the great day of judgment. Tayler Lewis further suggests as possible
that ‘the angel” might be “Gad, the messenger sent to David.”
Equally erroneous is the view of Ginsburg that it is ‘“‘the angel pre-
siding over the altar.” The angel in the text must necessarily mean
some one connected with the temple or synagogue, to whom appli-
cation might be made for a release from the vow rashly made, on the
ground that it was a 123%, a sin of weakness: The only difficulty lies
in the fact that though, according to the Mosaic law, a husband could
in certain cases of his own authority dissolve the vow of his wife, or
a father that of his daughter (Num. xxx.), no mention is made of
a priest having any special power in such matters. They had, how-
ever, a kind of oversight with regard to vows. See Lev. xxvi. 8, 12,
14; 18, 23. According to a passage in the Talmud, quoted by
Delitzsch (Bekhoroth, 36 δ), a learned man (53%), or even three lay-
men, could release from a vow. Hence we are disposed to regard the
word as meaning not only a priest, but any authorised teacher of
religion, Whether the author had in his mind the case of one who

362 Lhe Book of Noheleth. ec ea δ:

desired to be freed entirely from his rash vow, or of one willing to
offer up some lesser sacrifice in lieu of a larger, promised in a
moment of rashness, cannot be determined with any certainty. But
the excuse offered is certainly one contemplated by the author as
made at some public religious service to some person officially
accredited by the Church, and looked upon as God’s representative,
and hence termed ‘D7 “the messenger,” or “angel.” The writer
cannot refer to some invisible angel supposed to be present in
the temple. The LXX. explain the phrase as meaning “7” the
presence of God,” and so the Syr. and Arab., which coincides with our
explanation. Vulg., literally coram angelo, and Jerome zm conspectu

angelt. Prophets were often called by the term adn, as Isa. xliv.
26; Hag. i. 13; Mal. iii. x.

By “thy voice,” in the close of the verse, is probably meant not
“thy idle talk” (Ginsburg), but “the voice-of thy supplication,” or
prayer.

Graetz maintains that there is a reference in these verses to the
common superstition, that in case of evil dreams it was necessary to
offer up a sacrifice of some sort in order to avert the evil conse-
quences threatened. The custom referred to was prevalent among

“the Greeks, but unknown, as Graetz admits, to the Jews in pre-
exilian times. The saying of Rab, which Graetz quotes from the
Talmud (Shabbath, 11a; Taanith, 12 6), that “ fasting is serviceable
to make evil dreams innocuous,” is also insufficient to prove that the
Greek custom of ἀποτροπιασμός was common among the Jews of
later days, and it is fanciful to suppose that Koheleth in this passage

ridicules such folly. Graetz renders ban by “‘estémate,” in allusion to
the law of Lev. xxvii., where, however, a different word is made use
of. But the verb in question is evidently used in this passage in the
far stronger sense of des/roying, as in Isa. xiii. 5; liv. τό, etc. Com-

pare moan 72ND, angels of destruction, a common name used in the
Talmud and Midrash for the organs of Divine justice.

Renan asserts, that when vows were solemnly made in the temple,
and any delay occurred as to their performance, the priests were
wont to send agents to claim the money due. He considers that
the verse refers to this practice. But he has given no authority for
such a statement.

6. The verse as it stands is somewhat obscure and rugged in its

Chv.6.) Cretical and Granmatital Comm. 363

construction. It cannot well mean, as Symmachus, Vulg., Luther,
Ewald, “for in the multitude of dreams there are also vanities and
many words.” For the verse professes to assign a reason against rash
speaking and especially against rash vows, which so translated it would
not give. And why should the writer affirm that in dreams there are
“many words?” According to the Hebrew accentuation, the word
ovdan seems to be a genitive dependent on 713. So the Grec. Ven.,
ἐν yap πλήθει ὀνείρων καὶ ματαιοτήτων καὶ λόγοι πολλοί Hence BAN)
7357 is to be regarded as the predicate. The same objections,
however, lie against this translation. Hitzig and Knobel supply 3
from the first clause before Ὁ Δ in the second, thus rendering “ for
in the multitude of dreams are also vanities, and in many words also,”
Knobel compares Exod. xvi. 6; Prov. xxiv. 27; Job xxxvi. 26. Not
very dissimilarly Rosenmiiller. As the text stands, this seems the
best rendering, although the supply of the 3.15 somewhat harsh, and
the clause is uneven. Tayler Lewis renders, “ though (3, notwith-
standing) in multitude of dreams,” or “though dreams abound, and
vanities and words innumerable, yet (3) fear thou God.” Such a
rendering is impossible. According to it there would be no verb at all
in the passage. For Tayler Lewis does not intend the clause to be
understood as if it was literally, “there are also vanities and words,”
etc. (which would be also questionable), but he distinctly denies that
the copulative Ὁ has here ‘an assertive force.” The LXX. render
literally ὅτι ἐν πλήθει ἐνυπνίων καὶ ματαιοτήτων καὶ λόγων πολλῶν, ὅτι
σὺ τὸν θεὸν φοβοῦ, leaving it to be inferred that some such word or
expression as which are deceptive, or vain, isto be oe supplied.

So the Syr. inserts after 729737) the word ane Herzfeld,
after the Arab. version, followed by Ginsburg and Bullock, would
supply after the opening ‘2 the pronoun 8", used for the substantive
verb. They render the clause as if it were 191 02 80 5, “for df ἧς
(or, it happens) ¢hvough the multitude of idle thoughts, and vanities,
and much talking.” Herzfeld considers the reference to be to the
foolish speaking noticed in verse 2. Ginsburg seems to include also
“the wrath of God and the punishment consequent thereon,” spoken
of in the preceding verse. But this is harsh and unsuitable. Graetz
regards the text as corrupt, and would delete the first "3, thus making
the verse one with the preceding. Delitzsch considers that it is
probable that the text is dislocated, although the ancient versions

364 The Book of Koheleth, [Ch. v. 6, 7.

seem to have had the existing text before them. He would arrange
the text as follows : DYAM MII DAT Nw 37D, ie, “for in the
multitude of dreams and many words there are also divers vanities.”
This last is the rendering found in our Auth. Version.

7. See on p. 150. Graetz maintains that this verse is out of its
place, and belongs to another group than that in which it stands.
Like Hitzig, considering that the second clause refers to the authori-
ties of the land or empire, he regards that clause as ironical. He
further considers it impossible to view bra as the construct governing
PIS) DDLD as genitives expressing the object (signifying, robbery of
judgment and righteousness), though he does not state the ground
of his objection. If, as is probable, he objects on the ground that
such an expression is not found elsewhere, such an objection is
not decisive, since bn (const. Sry, here and in Ezek. xviii. 18) only
occurs six times in the O.T., and Πρ only. the same number. The
ancient versions have found no difficulty in the word, and it is
quite arbitrary to insert 5%? as an accusative of place, ‘2 the place
of,” before the two united genitives, as Graetz has proposed, and as
is approved of by Renan.

On YSN and 13°19, see Glossary. Rosenmiiller, Knobel, Ewald,
Elster, Zockler, etc., translate barby DDI, κε there ts the High One
above them,” regarding ‘} as the plural of majesty, after the analogy of
chap. xii. 1, or according to similar analogies in Prov. ix. 10; xxx. 3;
Dan. vii. 18, 22. The Targ. refers the first 923 to God, and some
English commentators have explained the text according to this view.
But Delitzsch correctly regards the second clause of the verse as
conclusive against this opinion, for AON AON is simply “de not sur-
prised thereat” (LXX. μὴ θαυμάσῃς), and the verse evidently means,
as explained at p.150: Do not be surprised at the corruption and
baseness of the lower officials, inasmuch as the same corruption
prevails among those in far higher positions. Koheleth is not here
seeking to cheer up the sufferer by bidding him look higher; he is
describing the evil state of affairs everywhere existing in the empire
in his own day. Hahn fancifully explains 1}'73 in this verse to
mean the kingdom of God; but Renan is not far wrong when
he observes that the feudal system in force at the time appeared to
Koheleth to be the principal cause of the wretched administration
of affairs glanced at in this verse.

Ch.v. 8,9] Crdttcal and Grammatical Comm. 365

8. Graetz would insert before this verse the passage in chap. vil. 11,
12. But it is improbable that any such dislocation could have ever
taken place. The rendering of our A.V., “che profit of the earth is for
all; the king himself ἐς served by the field,” has this in its favour, that
it coincides with the Hebrew accentuation. It is substantially the
same as that given by R. Samuel ben Meir (Rashbam). Its difficulty
lies in the rendering of 0553, for αἴ, as if it. were bs, 53 is best
explained as meaning “ia everything,” in all respects, i.g., always.
Comp. Gen. xxiv. 1; Ezra x. 17, which latter is incorrectly explained
in the A.V. The difference in this verse between the K’thibh and
K’rl is merely that the written text is 8’, and the K’ri reads §17 in
order to agree with 1D}, which is masculine. The K’ri note does not
extend at all to 053, as the remarks of Hitzig’and Zockler would lead
the reader to conceive. The first clause is best rendered, “and an
advantage of a land in all respects it is (to have) a king devoted to the
“eld,” or to agriculture. See Rosenmiiller, Dathe, Delitzsch. Other
translations of the latter clause are: (1) ὦ king honoured by the land,
z.e. by his subjects. See Gesenius, De Wette, Knobel, etc. But no
instance can be adduced of 77 being so employed. Knobel com-
pares Ps. Ixxviii, 12 where ΠῚ stands in parallelism to ἡ. (2)
Hahn, explaining this verse of the future heavenly king of Israel,
renders “a king will be honoured as wide as the field,” 1.4. over the
whole land. This translation is excessively forced, and in every
respect faulty. (3) Ewald, Heiligstedt, Elster, Zockler, translate
“aking made by the field,’ “rex agro factus, terre prefectus, 1.6. in
omnibus injuriis, quibus terra premitur hoc ei est utilitati, quod rex ei
preest, qui illas injurias comprimere et punire potest.”—Heiligstedt.
But, as Hitzig urges, neither the expression "9 ny nor Ao ‘Tay is
used for 20 make a king. (4) Hitzig regards 72%} as qualifying ΠῚ’,
and renders accordingly, “ a king to the tilled field. See LXX. βασιλεὺς
τοῦ ἀγροῦ εἰργασμένου. It is a point in favour of this that the niphal
of ἼΔΩ in the other three places in which it occurs (Ezek. xxxvi.
9, 343; Deut. xxi. 4) is used in the sense of “" ἡ ρα."

g. Though the aphorism in this verse does not appear at first sight
naturally to follow the subject mentioned in the preceding verses, a
little closer examination shows that it is intimately connected with it.
The oppressions noticed in ver. 7 are such as were occasioned by
“the love of money.” But a king fond of agricultural pursuits would

366 The Book of Koheleth. [Ch. v. 9, 10.

be unlikely to be a man inordinately fond of gain. And the love of
riches, continues Koheleth, brings no satisfaction to the man who
abandons himself to the pursuit of them, he obtains no real $0,
orreturn for his exertions, to be compared with the produce or fruit
afforded by the land (Josh. v. 12), or with that of the threshing floor
(Num. xviii. 30), which are enjoyed by the tiller of the soil. Ko-
heleth speaks of si/ver not of gold, because 192 silver, is, as Delitzsch
observes, the specific word for coin, The construction 2 228 in the
second clause is worthy of note, as it is only found in this passage.
The 3 strengthens the idea, and is in accordance with the analogy of
2 YBN, 2.735, etc. Compare 3 78), 10 ook upon with pleasure. fon
is used for a muétitude of persons, and also, as here, for abundance
of wealth. So in Ps. xxxviil. 16; 1 Chron. xxix. 16. Hitzig, after
the LXX., with Spohn and others, translates this last clause inter-
rogatively “dad who hath joy (or delight) in (that) abundance which
produces nothing?” But it is better with the Vulg. (gu@ amat divitias
fructum non capiat ex 115), Syr., Targ., and most commentators to

regard ANNAN x? as the simple predicate of the sentence viewed as a
statement of fact, “and he who loves wealth has no fruit,’ or advan-
tage from it. On the use of 27® in the first clause along with 8 Ὁ
in the second, see Ewald, § 331 2. Compare Horat., Zpist, i. 2, 56,
“‘ Semper avarus eget,” Ovid, as¢z, i. 211, 212.

“ Creverunt et opes et opum furiosa cupido
Et, cum possideant plurima, plura petunt.”

το. NIWA NIAAA, when prosperity increases. MI inf. const. of
ΠῚ to be many, to increase. Comp. Prov. xxix. 2, τό. “S137 those
that consume tt increase also, t.e. become many, or are many; probably
a reference, as Zockler supposes, to the numerous servants of a rich
household. Comp. Job i. 3; 1 Kings v. 2, ff. Ginsburg suitably
compares the anecdote narrated in Xenophon, Cyvof., viii. 3, 35-44.
There is no substantial difference between the reading of the
K’thibh (ΠῚ) and that of the K’ri (748)... Both nouns occur and
stand related to one another as M20", K’thibh, Ps, exxv. 4, and ΠΕ,
which is found there in the K’ri, O%Y3 is used here in a singular
signification, as in verse 12; chap, vil. 11; vill. 8; Exod. xxi. 29:
Isaiah i. 3, etc. Similar is the use-of DTS in the plural as a singu-
lar,

Ch. v. 11-13,] Cretical and Grammatical Comm. 367

11. The advantage of agricultural pursuits is here again touched
on, AYN is the Ausbandman., Comp. Gen. iv. 2; Prov. xii, 11.
When work in general is referred to, δου is the verb used. The
LXX. (not the Syr.), followed by the Arab., translate slave (12%), a
reading which has been adopted by a few critics. The more general
word, however, suits the passage better, the free labourer as well as,
the slave enjoys sleep as the result of toil. In the expression > yawns
in the next clause no reference is made to the overloaded stomachs
of the rich, as Jerome, Rosenmiiller, Hitzig and others have
supposed, led astray by the allusion to eating in the first clause.
For the overloading of the stomach would: produce the same effect
in.the case of the poor as in that of therich. “ Zhe abundance of
the rich” (comp. Y2¥ in Prov, iii. ro ; Gen. xli. 29), is rather the
abundance of their riches, which bring with them cares and anxieties
which prevent slumber. ρυῦ ya’ is a circumlocution for the
genitive. See Ges.-Kautzsch, ὃ 115, 2; Kalisch, § 87, 14 @.
Delitzsch notes that the nouns δον, 37 and YZ have no construc!
state, and hence the necessity for this construction. yat’ is the const,
of Ya’, But it may be noted that 027 (Neh. ix. 15) shows that it
is quite possible to say for example }*289 227; compare also δον,
Ps. Ixix. 22; ONOY, Ps. civ. 11. Ginsburg is mistaken in regard-
ing ἘΝ as a dative. Classical parallels for the thought in the
second clause may be found in Horat., Sad, i. 1, 70-79, Juvenal, δά,
X, 12, 13, or xiv. 304, “ misera est magni custodia census,” and the
maxim of Publius Syrus, “ avarum irritat, non satiat pecunia.” On
the former clause we may compare Hor., Od., iii. 20-24, Virg.,
Georg., ii. 467-474, or, with Plumptre, Shakespeare, Henry VI, act
ll. scene 5.

13. nbin TW, a sore evil, nbin is the feminine participle of nbn, to
be sick. Compare YD bn, chap. vi. 2; nbn) ΤῸ, Jer. xiv. 17; Neh.
ili. 19. ab Wow, preserved by the owner. See Ewald, § 295 ¢ Gins-
burg’s rendering “ hoarded up by the rich for the owner’ is possible,
in accordance with the analogy of 1 Sam. x. 24, the only other
passage where the construction 5 aang occurs. But the idea thus
introduced into the text is not natural, and, as similar constructions
occur, as has been pointed out by Ewald, it is rash with Ginsburg to
condemn on the authority of a single passage, as “ ungrammatical,” a

368 The Book of Koheleth. (hi aw 13-15.

construction so obviously intended here, and one which has the sup-
port of the ablest critics, such as Knobel, Ewald, Hitzig, Heiligstedt,
and Delitzsch. On DY?Y2 used in a singular signification, see note
on ver. 10. See our remarks on this passage on p. 149.

win), The perfect is used in order to bring into prominence
a further aggravation of the hypothetical instance adduced by the
writer, “and should he have begotten a son, then (1) there ts nothing
in his hand,” 1.6. wherewith to support the child, Others suppose
that the suffix ἀξς refers to the son, but this is not so good. On the
use of the perfect, Delitzsch compares the Clause in Gen. xxxili. 13,
wwxorbp in}. See also Driver, //eb, Tenses, § 149.

14. This verse is closely connected with. the preceding, and does
not introduce a new subject, as Rosenmiiller supposes; the author
evidently refers to Jobi. 21. Comp. Sirach xl. 1, in which a reference
is made to this passage. Nat's for &2 TEND, ya xd mnisn,
M2189 precedes the δ for emphasis in the sense of “anything,” gzéd-
guam. Compare the clause at the end of the preceding verse with
the phrase 1772 PS 7DIND1 in Judges xiv. 6. Some expositors regard
the 3 in \nY2 as partitive, “taking nothing from his work.” So
Vulg., Ibn Ezra, Luther, our A.V., Ginsburg, etc. But it is better
with the Targ., Knobel, Ewald, and Delitzsch, to regard it as the
1 pretit, “ taking nothing by his work.”

οι One of the few instances of the jussive (see Excursus,
No. 4) which occur in this book. Other instances occur in ch. x. 10
(TAN), and ch. xii. 4 (B11), see note 3 on p. 247. Hitzig would
read qo, kal instead of hiphil, on the authority of the LXX. ἵνα
πορευθῇ, Symm. ὃ συναπελεύσεται. But this reading would scarcely
signify (as Hitzig explains it) which would go with him, as a reward
for his trouble. A fitting parallel to the thought of the passage is
found in 1 Tim. vi. 7, compare also Propertius, ii. 35, 36,—

“Haud ullas portabis opes Acherontis ad undas ;
Nudus ab inferna, stulte, vehere rate.”

15. 1, Vid. ἢ. on ch, ii, 2. “' ΤῸΝ 52. Vid. glossary under t’.
Delitzsch notes that the Cod. Heidenheim writes 3 as one word,
probably under the mistaken presupposition alluded to by Kimchi,
that it is a composite word compounded of the 3 of comparison and

Th. v. 15-17.) Critical and Grammatical Comm. 369

nigu> (which frequently occurs'in Hebrew), and therefore ought to be
pointed ΣΝ On PY see Gesenius’ Lexicon.

τό, Instead of “eats in darkness,” bon qW3, the LXX, and Vulg.
read boas ‘NB (καὶ ἐν πένθει, atgue tristitia). This reading is approved
by. Spohn, Heiligstedt, and Ewald. Battcher proposes to read 55}.
Hitzig regards vba as the accusative of the object, ze “1:
eats (consumes) al/ his days in darkness.” The passages, Job xxi. 13,
Dp) 32 452), or Ba O79 95D), Job xxxvi. 1x, do not justify this
explanation. The expressions ¢o sit in darkness (Micah vii. 8),
and to walk in darkness (Isaiah ix. 2; 1. 10), coupled with such
phrases as “the bread of affiction and the water of affliction (1 Kings
xxii. 27), justify the retention of the reading of the text, which cor-
responds with the thought in Virg., Aen, ii. 92, “afflictus vitam in
tenebris luctuque trahebam.” Ginsburg gives some curiosities of
interpretation in his note on the passage.

ὈΜ5} in the Masoretic text is the verb. It cannot be taken (as
Tayler Lewis has done) as a noun with the pathach lengthened into’
kametz. The tone being milra forbids this. The noun as a segholate
must be milel. Delitzsch observes that in the Cod. Heidenheim the
note is added to the word y7>D ‘A, Ze. “twice mitra,’ the verb occur-
ring in the perfect here and in Ps. cxii. 10.. The perfect, according
to Hebrew syntax, suitably follows the imperfect in the previous
clause. But the conclusion of the sentence is thus somewhat abrupt.
The LXX. render the clause, cal θυμῷ πολλῷ καὶ ἀῤῥωστίᾳ καὶ χόλῳ.
Hence Hitzig would read: 4¥?% nora 373 BY3}, In this case the
copula would be regarded as uniting ‘all his days” in the former
sentence with (DJ3) “ vexation” here. But this would be a strange
combination of ideas. Ewald, Burger, and Bottcher would also
point DY as the noun, and read in the latter part simply bn,

Delitzsch, however, well remarks that in this case the reading bo sony
would be necssary. Zéckler (who is here misinterpreted by his Eng-
lish translator), Delitzsch, and others preferably regard 13?) won) as
an exclamation, “azd of / (thereto must be added) Aés seckness and
anger!” YDelitzsch compares similar exclamations in Isa. xxix. 16;
Jer. xlix. 16. See Ewald, ὃ 328 a. See before, p. 149.

17. The text as accentuated in the Hebrew presents a difficulty.
The word “ good” would naturally be construed with the verb “ saw,’

BB

370 The Book of Koheleth. (Ch. v. 17-19.

“ Behold that which I saw to be good.” But the accent closes the
first sentence with rebhia. Hence "δ in pause is there "38. The
2. must then be connected with what follows. But ΠΡ" ὙΣΝ 210
cannot be translated with the Targ., Syr., and the A.V., "1 zs good
and comely, etc.” Hence the assertion of Graetz that we have here
the Greek καλὸν κάγαθόν is unproved. Better, as in the marg. of the
A.V. after the LXX., ἰδοὺ εἶδον ἐγὼ ἀγαθὸν 6 ἐστι καλὸν κιτιλ., “ there
ts a good which is comely,” ΟΥ̓“ beautiful.” Even in the latter case
we would have expected a distinctive accent at ΠΏΣ, in place of
munach. Rosenmiiller follows the LXX. (so also Tayler Lewis) and
appeals with Kimchi to Hosea xii. 9, as a parallel, NOM Y's ἣν,
“a transgression which ts sin.” The parallel is, however, unsatis-
factory, inasmuch as that passage probably means “iniquity which
deserves punishment.” Hence it is safer, with Delitzsch and most
modern critics, to disregard here the accentuation, and regarding the
second ἽΝ as referring back to the first, to translate “ Behold what
L have seen good, which is beautiful (namely), etc, ‘This passage is
one of those relatively long verses in which no athnach is found.
The accentuation is somewhat peculiar. The suffix in ony refers
to the subject of the preceding infinitives. See Ewald, ὃ 294 4, 2.
42) ἼΞΟΙ, acc. of time, comp. chap. ii. 3. Knobel compares with
this verse Marc. Aurel. i. 1, where that emperor says of himself
τεθεωρηκὼς τὴν φύσιν τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ ὅτι καλὸν K.T.A.

18. The 23 with which the verse commences is to be regarded as
referring to each clause of the same. 5), This word occurs in
Josh. xxii. 8, and, therefore, although generally used by later writers,
is not to be cited as one of the proofs: of the composition of
Koheleth in post-Solomonic times.

19. It is unnecessary, with Herzfeld whom Ginsburg has followed,
to suppose that the 7277 really belongs to A ‘D8, and not to 73":
For similar instances of attraction Ginsburg refers to chap. ii. 24 ; iii.
21. The text, however, requires no transposition. Koheleth simply
affirms that the man, who enjoys the blessings spoken of in the
former verse as proceeding from the hand of God, does not, as a fact
of ordinary experience, “ much remember,” or think of, “the days of
his life;” although he knows full well (as stated in ver. 17) that they
are but few in number. The blessings which God bestows upon
man so occupy his attention that he does not often trouble himself
with the thought that all such enjoyments are fleeting. ‘The second

Ch. v.19-vi. 11 Cretecal and Grammatical Comm. 371

clause of the verse presents some difficulties, though the general
drift of the passage is tolerably clear. Ewald considers that the
hiphil is here used in the sense of the kal, and, appealing to Ps. lxv.
6, for the construction of 3 9¥, translates, “ God grants to him the
Joy of his heart,” i.e. the joy of heart which: man possesses is God’s
gift. Similarly Heiligstedt. The passage in Ps. lxv. 6 cannot be
regarded as a proof of this, for ΠῺΣ is construed there with a double
accusative, and the P7¥2 which follows in that passage is best ex-
plained as an adverbial designation of the mode and manner. ΤΧΧ,
ὅτι ὁ θεὸς περισπᾷ αὐτὸν ἐν εὐφροσύνῃ καρδίας αὐτοῦ, “ God occupies him
in the joy of his heart.” So Vulg., ‘eo quod Deus occupat deliciis,
etc.” Similarly Vaihinger and Knobel. Others, as Koster, “ God
makes him sing tn the joy of his heart.” But if it had been the
author’s intention to express this idea he would certainly have made.
use of a less ambiguous verb. For 3) unites the significations of
being bowed down, and of replying and of singing. In the last signi-
fication it is identical with the Arab. ot: “God makes him sing”

would have been expressed by ὙΠ, Fiirst translates “ God wit-
nesses to the joy of his heart,” but what is the meaning of that?
Ginsburg, desiring to uphold the causative sense of the hiphil, renders,
“ God causeth (him) to work for the enjoyment of his heart.” But,
as Delitzsch remarks, 3 ΠῚ in Koheleth does not mean simply, Zo
busy oneself with a matter, but to weary oneself with it, so that the
hiphil does not express the desired meaning. It is on the whole
better to explain the phrase with Delitzsch, “God answers (corresponds
with) the joy of his heart,” i.e, as interpreted by Plumptre, “is felt
to approve it as harmonizing, in its calm evenness, with His own
blessedness.”

CHAPTER VI.

t. Koheleth often introduces new experiences with ©; either
followed by WS, as here and at chap. viii. 14, or without WR, as
in chap. iv. 8; v. 125 x. 5.

‘n by sn na, The use of this phrase in chap. viii. 6 seems
decisive in favour of the translation, “ iis great upon man,” that
is, les heavy upon him. Compare chap. ii, 2x. The phrase has
also been interpreted to mean, ἐξ ἦς common among men. So the
Vulg. freguens apud homines, our A.V., and many commentators,

372 The Book of Koheteth. [Ch. vi. 2, 3.

2. The phrase “riches and wealth and honour” is evidently
borrowed from the narrative concerning Solomon in 2 Chron. i. 11,
where the three words are found similarly united. This fact is
conclusive against the translation of N13 by abundance, given by
Herzfeld, Ginsburg, and others. Ginsburg asserts that the trans-
lation Aonour “is incompatible with the verb Soy, inasmuch
as it would be preposterous to say, Ae cannot eat his honour ;” but
the same remark would be applicable to the other nouns 77ches
and wealth, To eat is used metaphorically in the sense of 20
enjoy.

The Vulg., Targ., etc. render IP 1318, ¢here τς nothing wanting,
the suffix being treated as pleonastic (Gen. xxx. 333 XXxix. 9, are
quoted as instances of this usage, but incorrectly). The LXX.
render καὶ οὐκ ἔστιν ὑστερῶν τῇ ψυχῇ αὐτοῦ. The literal translation
is “and he lets not his soul want of all, ete.” “OM is a verbal adjec-
tive. wind is the dat. commodi, for himself, a sense which ΕΒ)
with suffixes frequently has: ‘2, myself, WD, thyself. The {9 is
best regarded as partitive, as in Gen. vi. 2. °192 US, @ stranger, one
of another family, and not the legal heir. There is no occasion to
take the word with Heiligstedt in the sense. of ὦ foreigner. 0 bn,

compare abin ΠΡ, chap. v. 12.

3. LYS, @ man, used indefinitely for ove, any one, Ges.-Kautzsch,
§ 124, 2, rem. 2; Kalisch, ὃ 82,4. ΠΝ τον, The word 023 is
evidently understood. Comp. 1 Sam. 11. 5; Gen. v. 3, Knobel,
however, thinks that the numeral is to be taken adverbially, appealing
to Gesenius, Lehrgeb., p. 703, but this would rather be expressed
by M82, Comp. chap. vill. 12... The expression a Aundred is to be
regarded as around number (Gen xxvi. 12; 2 Sam. xxiv. 3; Prov.
xvii. το). Several of the kings of Israel and Judah had a large num-
ber of children. The number of Solomon’s sons is not given, but
Rehoboam had eighty-eight children (2 Chron. xi. 21) and Ahab
had at least seventy sons (2 Kings x. 1). Bernstein, Delitzsch and
Plumptre trace in the passage an allusion to Artaxerxes Mnemon
(B-c. 405-362) who had, according to Justin (x. 1), 115 sons by
various concubines besides the three begotten in lawful marriage.
His son and successor Artaxerxes Ochus, who reigned from B.c. 362
to 339, was murdered by Bagoas and had no funeral, his body being
thrown to the cats.

Ch.vi3) Critical and Grammatical Con. a3

In the phrase 128°")? πὴ 2 the Ὁ ig redundant, it is really
connected with the preceding O8; 2 can scarcely to be regarded
with Hitzig as the verb, but is the adjective: taken adverbially. So
Heiligstedt, “et si multum est, quod fuerint, i.e, et si multi fuerint
dies annorum ejus.” The phraseology seems to be a reminiscence
of the "2. ΠῚ which recurs so often in Genesis v. Knobel and
Vaihinger take 27 in the sense of powerful, mighty, understanding
the phrase to be, “and great as he may be while his years last.”
Similarly the Targum. Ginsburg, however, renders correctly, “‘ yea,
numerous as may be the days of his years.”

The clause, ‘and also he has no grave,” or burial, has occasioned
difficulty to some commentators. Hitzig considers that it gives the
impression as if the writer asserted that if.the rich miser received
a decent burial, his lot would be better than an untimely birth, a
statement opposed to the whole tenor of the context and of verse 6,
Hence he would strike out the clause. Others have sought to
interpret it metaphorically, or to explain the loss of the grave as
caused by the ultimate poverty which overtakes the rich man,
or on account of the meanness of his relatives or heirs, or their
hatred of him. Ginsburg has interpreted the passage, “even if
the grave did not wait for him,” that is, even supposing he had a
very long life. But the passage in Job xvii. 1 does not prove
that the clause is equivalent to sha// not see death (Ps. 1xxxix. 49),
or shall not see the grave (Ps. xvi. 10; xlix. το), the latter phrase
being very different from that in our passage. 32 means he
grave or burial, ΩΤ ΤΌΣ, the burial of .an ass, is spoken of as
the most dishonourable, in Jer. xxii. 19. Hengstenberg is scarcely
correct in maintaining that the grave of an ass is the flaying ground,
and that allusion is here made to such a catastrophe as is spoken of
in. Ps, Ixxix. 3 or Jer, viii. 2; ix. 21, etc. It is possible that there
may be a historical allusion in the passage to the fate of Ochus
already noticed, but, whether this be or be not the case, it is certain
that the want of burial in the grave of one’s ancestors was looked
upon as aloss. Comp. 1 Kings xiii. 22; Isaiah xiv. 18-20. Kleinert
gives a very different sense to the passage, maintaining that Koheleth
returns here to the thought expressed in the first clause, and that the
words ‘‘and that he hath no burial” form the climax, thus meaning
that even if such a man were to require no grave, or in other words,
were immortal, his lot is not to be envied.

374 The Book of Koheleth. [Ch. vi. 3-5.

‘nN, Lsay. Ges.-Kautzsch, § 126, 3; Ewald, § 135 4; Kalisch,
§ 93, 3.

4. The contrast here between the perfect and imperfect tenses
ought to be preserved in translation. Compare the reference here
to the untimely birth, with that in Job iii. 16; Ps. ἵν}. 8. There is
no necessity to interpret “ame” here of memory. The lifeless
foetus receives no name, but always, as Delitzsch observes, remains a
nameless thing, and is forgotten as if it had never been. The trans-
lation @ mist, an exhalation, given by Gesenius and others here for
237, and assigned also as the rendering of that word in chap. viii.
14; xl. 8, cannot be justified. dann seems here to be used of
human existence which the writer repeatedly declares is in itself,
“ vanity,” ‘ nothingness.”

5. ΠΡ mb nm, Lit. che rest that is (belongs) ¢o this (one) (the
untimely abortion) és more than this other, ze. the rich man,
Compare on 1} — ΠῚ chap. iii. 19. M2 is a segholate noun from the
stem 13. The LXX. has striven to preserve the construction of the
Heb., καὶ οὐκ ἔγνω ἀναπαύσεις τούτῳ ὑπὲρ τοῦτον. But Symmachus
has translated the clause, καὶ οὐκ ἐπειράθη διαφορᾶς ἐτέρου πράγ-
ματος πρὸς ἕτερον, Vulg. neque cognouit distantiam boni et mali.
Delitzsch has explained the rendering of Symmachus as arising from
the common Talmudic construction of ΠῚ), guzet, mild (an adjective
from the same stem), with 5 in the sense of “ detter than.” The
first example of this cited in Levy’s Meuheb, und Chald. W.B.,
from γώ. 13 ὦ, has a direct bearing on the passage before us. For
two years and a half there was a controversy between the school
of Shammiai and that of Hillel ; ‘‘ the one (party) said ( DIN? 19 ny)
it was better for man that he had not been created than (in the
condition) that he was created; and the other said, it was better

for man (oad Ὁ M9) that he was created rather than not to have
been created. Their votes were counted, and they decided (1293

vai), that it was better for man (τοῦ Ὁ M2) if he had not been
created, rather than to have been created ; but, inasmuch as he had
been created, he ought to lead a blameless life.” The reader will
observe how much further the Jewish theologians were disposed to
go in this point than even Koheleth with all his pessimism. The
expression of the writer, remarks Delitzsch, cannot stand the test
of exact thought. Koheleth is not, however, to be looked upon

Ch. vi.s-7.] Crttical and Grammatical Comm. 375

in the light of a calm logical debater, and he nowhere lays claim to
being such. But reflections such are here indulged in are common
to man, however defective they may appear when weighed in the
balances of pure reason.

6. 398), vid. Glossary. ODYB, vid. Ges.-Kautzsch, ὃ 120, 5. Ka-
lisch, § 91, 7. Ibn Ezra regards D'oyS Dw FON to mean a thousand
years multiplied by a thousand, ze. a million. Delitzsch notes that
the Targ. explains DMI, in Isa. xxx. 26, as signifying 343=7*7% 7
“the light of the sun shall in future shine three hundred and forty-
three times more brightly.” He remarks that Ibn Ezra is possibly
right, for why should the author not have written 72 DYBDN ? There
is no other instance in Biblical Hebrew of OD%2UB used after a
numeral, so that the requisite data are wanting to enable one to
arrive at any definite conclusion on the matter.

Ἢ ΝΟ ΠΡΟ, The reference of the writer is not to moral or spiri-
tual good, but to the enjoyment of life referred to in verse 3. The
Targum, however, refers the passage to higher things, rendering
“cand if the days of the life of the man were two thousand years,
and he did not study the Law, and did not perform judgment and
righteousness by means of the oath of the Word of the Lord, in the
day of his death his soul will descend to Gehenna, to the place where
all sinners are going.”

Compare on the last clause of the verse the Horatian expression,
“ omnes eodem cogimur” (Carm., il. 3, 25), and Ovid, AZefam., x. 33,

“Tendimus huc omnes, sedem properamus ad unam.”

Fx, ὙΠ is — by some “ἦγ proportion to him,” “ according to
his measure’ Comp. BD j in Exod. xii. 43 Gen. xlvii. 12. But this
rendering does not suit the context. ‘Fur his mouth” is equivalent to
for his enjoyment. Zockler maintains that mouth and soul are here
contrasted as representatives—the former of the purely sensual enjoy-
ments, the latter of deeper, spiritual joys. But, as Delitzsch notes,
WD} (soul) and 1B (mouth) are so little thought of as contrasted with
one another that in Prov. xvi. 26 the phrase “λές mouth” in one
sentence corresponds to “ ἀξ soul” (A.V. Acmself) in the other. So
also Isaiah v. 14; xxix. 8. Delitzsch observes also that the expres-
sion MB WAI, the excellent soul” is used (in Chudlin, iv. 7) of a
good appetite, ze. an appetite which is not fastidious.

76 The Book of Koheleth. (Ch. vi. 7, 8,

(oe)

The expression xonn ΝΟ is used here figuratively of the soul just
as it is in chap. 1, 8 used of the ear.

8. H. G. Bernstein (Quast, p. 21) and Ginsburg consider that the
19 in the first clause is to be supplied before U1’, in which case
the second clause would mean ‘ zat advantage has the poor man
over him who knoweth to walk before the living?” Bernstein, in
support of this construction, refers to Zech, xiv. 10; 2 Chron, xv. 9;
Hab. ii. 8,17; Ps. xvii. 9, etc., but the passages appealed to are not
strictly parallel. Ginsburg explains the clause “him who knoweth to
walk before the living,” as meaning one who leads a public life, a
chief, a magnate, but such an expression is unparalleled elsewhere.
We have no authority from the usage of the book to explain, with
the Targum, “τῆς living” to mean “the righteous in paradise,”
Nor can we adopt such forced explanations as that of Gractz who
makes Ὁ the poor man to be an ascetic, one who afflicts his soul
(vB) TY, Isa. lviii. 3), and regards 722 as used in an adversative
sense, rendering the latter clause “to walk against life,” or to act
differently from the ordinary course of life. 68M must, as else-
where in this book, be rendered ‘fhe living, and the sentence
ona 423 n> vi) must be construed together, notwithstanding the
zakeph katon on the first and the tiphcha on the second word.
Delitzsch cites Gen. vii. 4 as an instance in which the same conse-
cution of accents does not interfere with their close grammatical con-
nexion. The form pa for the inf. const., which occurs here and in
the next verse in place of the more common n39, is found in five
other passages, Num. xxii. 13, 14, 16; Exod. iii. το, and Job xxxiv.
23. The LXX., Vulg. and Syr. all regard 0M as used in the sense
of /ife, and seem, as Ginsburg has noted, to have been influenced
by the mystical explanation of the passage to the life beyond the
grave. But their rendering in detail is not easy of interpretation.
The LXX. render, ὅτι περισσεία τῷ σοφῷ ὑπὲρ τὸν ἄφρονα, διότι ὃ
πένης οἷδε πορευθῆναι κατέναντι τῆς ζωῆς. Vulg. “quid habet amplius
sapiens a stulto? et quid pauper, nisi ut pergat illuc, ubi est vita?”
Ewald translates, “what advantage hath the wise man over the fool,
the intelligent sufferer that he walks before the living?” This trans-
lation would be scarcely intelligible without the interpretation of
its author, who paraphrases it as follows: the wise understanding
sufferer, or pious man, has in this an advantage which makes life

Ch. vi. 8, 9.1 Critical and Grammatical Comm. 257

(“walking before the living”) endurable to him, that he does not
permit strong desire so destructive (to peace) to rule over him, but
is contented to enjoy life in quiet contemplation. But the idea of
the passage seems to be, the desire of man is insatiable, he is never
really satisfied ; the wise man, however, seeks to keep his desires
within bounds, and to keep them to himself, but the fool utters all
his mind (Prov, xxix. 11), Even the poor man who knows how
to conduct himself in life, and understands. the right art of living,
though he keeps his secret to himself, feels within himself the
stirrings of that longing, which is destined never to be satisfied on
earth below.

9. By VANW, the sight of the eyes, may be understood the things
which are seen by the eyes, the enjoyment of what we can see with
the eyes, the good and the beautiful. Or the sight of the eyes may
be explained of that which is present as contrasted with that which is
often desired after. So Elster, Zockler. The wandering to and fro
of the soul may even be explained (with Zockler) as the seeking after
high things (Luke xii. 29; Rom. xii. 16) which is characteristic of the
man discontented with his present lot. Luther has not unsuitably
rendered the idea as equivalent to, “27 ἐς better to enjoy the good that
zs present, than speculate about some other,” like the dog in the fable
who snapped at the reflection of the meat in the water, and lost the
piece he had in his mouth. Delitzsch objects to the explanation of
wera, as an equivalent to the rioting of desire, grassatio, te.
impetus anime appetentis, the ὁρμὴ τῆς ψυχῆς (of Marc. Aurelius, iii.
16), as it explained by Knobel, Heiligstedt, and Ginsburg. For he
observes that spa means grassart only with certain subjects, such as

fire, pestilence, etc., and in certain forms, as wm for 3), to which

χε = nab does not belong ; but it means rather evrazio, the going out
abroad, roving in the distance (comp. qn, a traveller) the ῥεμβασμὸς
ἐπιθυμίας of Wisdomiv. 12. The attempt, however, to draw a distinc-
tion in meaning between the various forms in use of the verb τος 15
somewhat too subtle. Graetz strangely renders “ὁρίζον, the fecding of
the eyes (present enjoyment) ¢han consumption of the body” by ascetic
practices. But this is certainly not the sense of the writer. Renan,
however, follows Graetz, rendering “ mieux vaut vivre A sa guise que
de s’exténuer,” and proceeds to explain the M17D3 (even this) which
follows by rendering, “too much wirtue is also a vanity.” But the

378 The Book of Koheleth. [Ch. vi. 9, 10.

section is descriptive rather of the insatiableness of desire than “the
vanity of virtuous efforts.” Moreover Koheleth nowhere regards
asceticism as a virtue. Knobel compares Marc. Aur., iv. 26, τὸ δ᾽
ὅλον, βραχὺς ὁ βίος" κερδαντέον τὸ παρὸν σὺν εὐλογιστίᾳ καὶ δικῇ" νῆφε
ἀνειμένος, also Horat., 2) 21:4.,1, 18, 96-99.

to, According to Hahn and others, Koheleth here returns partially
to the thought expressed in chap. i. that there is nothing really new
under the sun. Hahn, comparing Gen. viii. 21, considers the author
to refer to the evil which has taken place since the fall of man. A
reference, however, to the fall of man would be here strangely out
of place. Tayler Lewis imagines an allusion to be made to the
name of Adam as derived from the earth, MOT (Gen. ii. 7), names
having been given of old to things to denote their real nature.
Koheleth seems rather to point to the fact that man cannot alter the
conditions under which he is placed by the predetermination of God,
and to urge that he would act wisely in submitting himself to the will
of his Maker. It is not so much the weakness or mortality of man
which is referred to, as that man is a being placed under conditions
both as to time and place (comp. Acts xvii. 26). The phrase DY’ δ
may have a reference to Gen. ii. 19. As to the niphal participle
YT}, Bullock has well compared the expression in Acts xv. 18,
γνωστὰ ἀπ᾽ αἰῶνός ἐστι τῷ Θεῷ πάντα τὰ ἔργα adrov.! ‘As ΠΙ after YT
denotes guid, so WS after YT may mean guod=that which (comp.
Dan. viii. 19, although there is no need of a proof), and zd guod
homo est will express that which a man is—it is impossible to translate
the 817 without expressing a definite idea of time—namely that the
whole existence of a man, whether of this or that person, at all
times and on all sides, is previously known.”—Delitzsch. The
thought of Koheleth is very similar to that in Isaiah xlv. 9 ; Rom.
ix. 20 ff. Indeed the Apostle seems almost as much to refer to this
passage in Koheleth as to that in Isaiah. The Midrash Shemoth
§ xl. considers the calling of Bezaleel to make the tabernacle and its
furniture (Exod. xxxi. 1, 2) an illustration of this saying of Koheleth.

The Kri has ἢ ΡΠ", omitting the article, which occurs in the

1 That reading of the passage in Acts, however, is not considered the most
correct one. Westcott and Hort, with Alford and others before them, read λέγει
Kupwos ταῦτα ποιῶν γνωστὰ ἀπ᾽ αἰῶνος, and this is the reading which has been
adopted in the new Revised Version, ‘saith the Lord, who maketh these things
known from the beginning of the world.”

Ch. vi. το, τι] Crétical and Grammatical Comm. 379

K’thibh, PANY, That the reading of the latter ought to be thus
pointed, and not with Herzfeld, A’?N7Y, the hiphil of 52M viewed as
a denominative verb from ἢ (vid. Ges.-Kautzsch, ὃ 53, 2), is plain
from the passages in chap. x. 3, 20, as also Lam. v. 18, where similar
marginal corrections occur in which the article is omitted. Had we
not the analogy of these passages to guide us as to the sense
in which the written text was understood, the opinion of Herzfeld
would be defensible. ‘For, though the hiphil of PN does not occur
in’ Bibl. Hebrew, it is found, as Delitzsch notices, in the Talmud,
and the aphel is in use in the Targum.

11. The contention alluded to in the former verse is here further
explained as one carried on by words; for we must not, as many com-
mentators have done, render 8°27 in this passage by ¢izngs, thereby
obscuring the whole significance of the verse. The ancient versions
(LXX., Vulg., Syr.) have rightly seen this. The Targum alone in-
terprets the noun to mean ¢Azvgs. Elster and Delitzsch with great
probability consider that the reference of the author is to the school-
learning of the Jews which was then coming into notice. According
to Josephus the problem of man’s freedom and the decrees of God
formed a subject of dispute between the Pharisees on the one hand
and the Sadducees on the other, the former maintaining an intimate
connexion between the Divine decrees (fate, or εἱμαρμένη), and the
acts of man; the Sadducees denying that there was any such thing
as fate at all (ξΞαδδουκαῖοι δὲ τὴν μὲν εἱμαρμένην ἀναιροῦσιν), The
Pharisees, however, did not maintain that. 811 human actions were
the subject of the Divine decrees (of μὲν οὖν Φαρισαῖοί twa καὶ οὐ
πάντα τὴς εἱμαρμένης εἶναι λέγουσιν ἔργον, τινὰ δ᾽ ἐφ᾽ ἑαυτοῖς ὑπάρχειν,
συμβαίνειν τε καὶ οὐ γίνεσθαι), but in contradistinction to the Essenes
(who believed that all things were predestined) they. seemed to have
maintained that in matters of morality men were free. See Joseph.,
Antig., xiii. 5,9; xvii. 1, 3, 43 Bell Jud., ii. 8,14. According to
Delitzsch, the Talmud gives us no insight into this controversy
among the Jewish theologians, save that in Berachoth, 33 ὦ, the re-
markable saying of Rabbi Chanina is preserved, yin Dy 3 bon
DN NX, “ Allis through the hand of Heaven except the fear of
Heaven,” 2.6. absolute freedom has been given to man to choose
his own course with respect to matters of religion and morality. See
also Adoth, ili, 24 (iii, 15). On these latter points’ man is fettered
by no Divine decrees impelling him to any special course of action.

380 The Book of Koheleth. (Ch. vi. 1t-vii. αν

St. Paul, as Delitzsch notes, has taken his stand on the same side
(Rom. ix.), and the author of the Book of Koheleth could have
countersigned the statements of the Apostle as his own, inasmuch
as the exhortation to “fear God” (chap. xii. 13) is “the stone
and star” (Kern und Stern), the pith and marrow, of his pessimistic
book.

12. Man knows not what is good for him in this life. What he
does in the present will bear fruit after he has passed away; and yet
who can point out with certainty to an individual the line of action he
should adopt in all cases, seeing that man does not know the secrets
of the future? U1), who knows? is a strong negative. Comp.
chap. iii. 21. 9" 7BD, Acc. of time, vid. chap ii. 3. ° ban,
Comp. chap. vii. 15; ix. 9. OW", The phrase Ὁ) ΠΕ means to
spend time, like ποιεῖν χρόνον, Acts xv. 33. Comp. James iv. 13, and
Proy. xiii. 33 (LXX.). The clause here is to be considered as
relative. ¥3 means as the shadow passes, so chap, vill. 13; Job
xiv, 2, not, as Delitzsch remarks, dike to a shadow (although the days
of a man’s life are elsewhere likened to a shadow, as in Ps. exliv. 4,
etc.), for the latter construction does not suit the verb (7) here
employed. The Hebrew phrase, though corresponding with the
Greek, and with the Latin facere dies (Cicero, Seneca, etc.), must not
be regarded, with Zirkel and Graetz, as a Greecism (Delifasch).

CHAPTER VII.

1. The writer, having virtually asserted in the last verse of the
previous section that it.is impossible to tell what is “ good” (330)
in life (a truth which, in the sense in which the assertion is made,
cannot seriously.be called in question), now proceeds to point out
that, however impossible it may be to know with certainty the
best course for an individual to pursue, there are certain things
connected with human affairs which may safely be pronounced
“good,” and even “ better than” other things.

The first clause of verse 1 is not to be rendered with the Midrash,
A.V. and Luther, “ἃ good name is better than precious (lit. good)
ointment.” For the order of the words and the analogy of the
proverbs which follow (verses z, 3, 5, 8) show that the first 210 (good)
is the predicate. So Vulg. “‘melius est nomen quam unguentum
bonum,” and the Targum. 8? is occasionally used without a qualify-

Ch. vii 1-3.) Cretical and Grammatical Commi. 381

ing adjective in the sense of a good name, renown. So Prov. xxii. 1;
Gen. vi. 4; comp. with the latter Job. xxx, 8. See remarks on p.
151. The paronomasia between DY and 19% is intentional; so also in
Cant. i. 3. yn DY, «the day of his” Ze. one’s “ birth.” Compare
on the suffix chap. viii. 16. See remarks on the verse on p. 151 and
p- 158. ;

2. M3). The of the article is correctly pointed with pathach
before, The Masora magna notes three exceptions, Gen. vi. 19 ;
Isaiah iii. 22; xvii. 8. See Baer and Delitzsch, crit. ed. of the
Heb, text of Isaiah (Lepizig, 1872), on chap, iii 22, 129 58 173, zo Jay
it to his heart, corresponds to nox DY, 2 Sam. xiii. 33; βοῦν oy,
Isa, ΧΙ. 25 ; aaa DY, 2 Sam. xxi. 13. The Vulg. paraphrases the
clause “εἰ vivens cogitat guid futurum sit;” LXX., literally but
strongly, 6 ζῶν δώσει ἀγαθὸν εἰς καρδίαν αὐτοῦ The Talmud (Zera-
choth, 6 6) quotes a saying of Rab Papa, “the advantage of (i.e.
which accrues from a visit to) the house of mourning is silence,”
namely, a solemn stillness, which Dukes (ads. Blumenlese, Ὁ. 87)
considers to be a comment on this verse.

Delitzsch remarks on this passage that the Talmudists have split
their heads in the endeavour to harmonise this saying with the
ultimatum of Koheleth (chap. ii. 24), “there is nothing better than
to.eat and to drink.” But the solution is easy. Koheleth’s ulti-
matum does not speak unconditionally of the enjoyment of life, but
of the’ enjoyment of life coupled with the fear of God. See remarks
on p. 232. When man contemplates the fact of death, two things
present themselves to him; (1) that he should make use of his
brief life, and (2) that he should use it in contemplation of his end,
and, therefore, like one who has to give account of himself to God.
Comp. Ps. xc. 12, ;

3. DY2 in contrast to PIN” evidently means sorrow, which pro-
duces the outward impression of me/ancholy. On the expression
DN 9 compare DY] D9 in Gen. xl. 7; seé also Neh. ii. 2. The
Vulg. takes DY2 in the sense of auger, and translates, “ melior est
ira risu, quia per tristitiam vultus corrigitur animus delinquentis,”
“anger ts better than laughter ; because by the sadness of the coun-
tenance the mind of the offender is corrected” (Douay Version). But
this is certainly not the sense of the passage, though, possibly, de-
rived from the Targum, which explains the anger and /aughter here

382 The Book of Koheleth. [Ch. vii. 3-6.

of God; God’s anger against the righteous resulting in their purifi-
cation, and His laughter at the wicked being a token of impending
ruin (Ps. xxxvii. 13). The purifying and sanctifying power of grief,
especially in contemplation of the grave, seems, however, to be the
real point which the writer has here in view.

4. Delitzsch observes that the reason why zakeph katon is used
to divide this verse in place of athnach is that none of the words
which follow pels are trisyllabic. Compare on the contrary, verse 7.

δ. The reproof of a wise man naturally refers to such warnings
as are naturally uttered in the house of mourning concerning the
duties of the living. For the song of fools with which it is here
contrasted is not to be understood with the Vulg. to signify the
flattery of fools (stu/torum adulatio), but the boisterous song of the
reveller in ‘‘the house of mirth” spoken of in the previous verse.
In place of Yhtp, which would have been naturally expected in the
second part of the verse, the phrase Ye vx is employed, because
the ‘‘hearing” in the two cases is thought of as connected with
two different individuals ——Delitzsch. The expression, the hearing of
rebuke, like many other similar phrases, is borrowed from the Book
of Proverbs (Prov. xiii. 1, 8), but Johnston has erred widely in regard-
ing such borrowed expressions as evidences of unity of authorship.

6. We have endeavoured in our translation to preserve the play
of words which occurs in the first clause in the Hebrew, ΘΠ bia
VPI NIA, It has also been preserved in the German rendering of
Vaihinger, Knobel, Delitzsch by rendering Wesseln, Kessel ; Ewald has
hntstern, kichern. Tt must be borne in mind, however, that Ὁ Ὁ
properly means ‘Horns; it is used in the sense of a thorn-hedge in
Hosea ii. 8, A.V. ii. 6. The stalks of dry thorns, or even nettles,
make a crackling noise and produce a bright flame. Symmachus
strangely renders, διὰ yap φωνῶν ἀπαιδεύτων ἐν δεσμωτηρίῳ γίνεταί τις.
Knobel considers that he probably read p>pan instead of O° D7,
On this rendering, Field, in his edit. of Orig. Hex., writes: “ Nobil.
affert ; Schol. διὰ yap φωνῶν ἀπ. (non τῶν ἀπ. ut Montef. post
Drusium edidit) «. το é Contenderimus scholium esse hujus aut
preecedentis versus, nisi diserte affirmarit Hieron. : ‘Symmachus pro
eo quod nos posuimus, Quia sicut vox spinirum sub olla, ste risus
stulti, . . . ait: Per vocem enim imperitorum vinculis quispiam
colligatur, Etiam sic vix credibile est, Symmachum Hebraa tam

Ch. vii. 6,71 Critical and Grammatical Comm. 383

clara adeo perverse interpretatum esse, praesertim cum juxta Syrum
nostrum idem interpres posteriorem clausulam sic verterit: οὕτως
καὶ γέλως τῶν ἀπαιδεύτων... In contrariam partem Schleusnerus
monet, vocem 7° in lingua Chald. et Syr. de vinculis et carcere adhi-
beri.” See Buxtorf, Lex. Chald εἰ Talm., s. v. 81D.

7. The *> at the commencement of the verse would be most
naturally explained as introducing a reason for the aphorism imme-
diately preceding. But the verses have no real connexion with one
another. Ginsburg would connect the “for” with the first clause of
verse 5, but this seems to be strained. The same view, however, has
been taken by Tayler Lewis, who considers PYY to mean annoyance
or perverseness, appealing to Ps. ixxiii. 8, and to Isaiah lix. 13, but
these proofs cannot be viewed as satisfactory. Ewald proposed
formerly to read WY riches in place of PYY oppression. But this he
maintains in. his last edition to be unnecessary, for a gift or a bribe
would be given to the wise in order to induce him to participate in
unlawful oppression. Ewald there renders PUY by zxyustice. The idea,
which Zéckler here introduces, of the wise man being drawn from the
path of probity i in consequence of the evil examples of the ungodly
(introduced in order to connect the verse with.the preceding), does not
explain the passage. There is no connexion between the boisterous
song of the foolish reveller, and the subject of this aphorism. Plumptre
thinks the “latent connexion ” is that “ the " song’ and ‘laughter’ of
fools, ze. evil-doers, like those of Prov. i. ro-18, and Wisd. 11: 1-20,
leads to selfish luxury, and therefore to all forms of unjust gain. The
mirth of fools, z.e of the godless, is vanity, for it issues in oppression
and bribery.” This explanation does not satisfy us. Renan quietly
omits the “for” in his translation. With the exception of the words
“this also is vanity” in verse 6, he regards the first eight verses of
this chapter to be proverbs quoted by Koheleth from various sources,
each more or less distinct from one another, but all tending to show
“the vanity of the philosophy which proclaims that all is vanity.”
There is much to be said in favour of Delitzsch’s idea that there is
a gap in the text between verses 6 and 7, and that verse 7 forms the
second half of a tetrastich, the former half of which has been lost,
but which probably began with %0, like the verses preceding. The
missing words he considers probelity conveyed some such thought
as that in Prov. xvi. 8, ‘‘ Better is a little with righteousness than
much produce without right, for oppression maketh the wise man

384 The Book of Koheleth. [Ch. vii. 7. -

mad, and a gift (bribe) destroys the heart.” Inasmuch, however, as
no trace of such a hiatus is found in the. ancient versions (albeit
that fact is by no means decisive in such a question), we incline
with the older expositors to connect the verse with what follows
instead of with that which precedes. The translation of ἡ by
“surely,” given in our A.V., cannot be sustained, for 3 in that sense
must be connected with a preceding clause. It may, however, be
rendered ‘‘because,” inasmuch as a sentence which expresses the
cause is sometimes placed first, as in Gen. iil. 14, 17. The sense of
the passage would then be: “oppression maketh (even) the wise
man mad, drives him to do foolish acts through indignation against
the oppressor (compare the use of the part. poal in Ps. ci. 9), and
a gift (a bribe given to pervert judgment) ruins the heart” 1.6. of
the wise, ze utterly breaks down his spirit under the sense of in-

justice. Comp. 7297 35 738%, Jer. iv. 9. The Psalmist speaks of a
smitten and a wounded heart (Ps. cil. 4, cix. 22), and Nabal’s heart
“died” within him (1 Sam. xxv. 37), when he heard the news which
Abigail communicated. So the spirit is said, in Prov. xv. 13, to be
broken by reason of sorrow of heart; and in numerous passages the
heart is spoken of as melted by reason of grief or terror.

Modern critics have generally supposed the verse to speak of the
wise man becoming perverted by stooping to oppression for the sake
of gain, and thus ultimately becoming a fool by yielding to his
passions. The text is regarded as an echo of Exod. xxiii. 8;
Deut. xvi. 19. In order to illustrate the expression of destroying
the heart, Delitzsch refers to Hosea iv. 11, where it is said that
“ whoredom and wine and new wine take away the heart,” or, even
more appropriately, to the expression used in Bereshith Radda, ὃ 56,

JD) NID NID NID. “Ave! age! thou hast destroyed thy heart,”
ze. lost thy understanding. The LXX., Vulg. and Targ. all under-
stand the writer to speak, not of a change in the wise man’s charac-
ter, but of some attack made upon the wise man himself. The
LXX. and Vulg. render PY by συκοφαντία, calumnia; compare
their rendering of chap. iv. 1. The Targ. explains the passage of
an attack made by robbers. The Syr., however, supports the opinion
of the later critics, ta‘ {,aa%> ΕΝ ros [acoad; ἃ δ
|lfQacte. On the want of agreement in gender between 728) and
ΤΠ see Ges.-Kautzsch, § 147 a; Ewald, § 316 a; Kalisch, § 77, 15.

Ch. vii. 8-11.) Crztzcal and Grammatical Comm. 385

4

8. This proverb seems to stand in close connexion with the pre-
ceding. The end of a matter is often better than its beginning, and
even out of evil good sometimes arises. For Koheleth adds, efter
7s he who ἐς forbearing in spirit (comp. ΘΙΞ TS, Exod. xxxiv. 6)
than he who who ts haughty of spirit. Both 8 and 732 are adjec-
tives in the construct state. On the form 7233, on account of the
guttural, vid. Ewald, ὃ 213 @; Kalisch, ὃ xxvii. 1, <4 Bottcher thinks
that it comes from a form "34, Zehrb., § 378, 4. The English trans-
lation of Delitzsch here utterly misrepresents that scholar’s opinion.
Hitzig regards ΤῊΝ as a noun and 733 as the inf. const. This is pos-
sible, but unnecessary. The man who can quietly endure oppression
is sure to come off best in the end (comp. Matt. v. 38-41). At the
same time the proverb can be taken also in the general sense assigned
to it in p. 151, though the former appears to us to be its primary
sense in the connexion in which the aphorism here occurs. If it be
thus expounded, it stands in intimate connexion with the aphorism
which immediately follows. Ginsburg renders 127 by repvoof, trans-
lating “the end of ἃ reproof is better than its beginning.” But the
examples he cites for that meaning (Prov. iv. 4, 20; 2 Sam. xvii. 6;
1 Kings i, 7) are certainly no proofs of such a signification,

g. In times of oppression a wise man ought to learn to keep down
his anger; and much more should he thus act in times when he is
assailed by lesser provocations. On 4°] comp. Job xix. 27. piy2d
infinitive, compare jie chap, v. τι.

1o. Every age has its peculiar difficulties, and a man inclined to
take a dark view of things will always be able to compare unfavour-
ably the present with the past. But a readiness to make com-
parisons of that kind is no sign of the possession of real wisdom.
There is light as well as darkness to be seen in every age. The
young men that shouted for joy at the rebuilding of the temple
acted more wisely than the old men who wept with a loud voice
(Ezra iil. 12, 13). Compare on the thought, Horat., De Arte Poet.,
173, 174:

“ Difficilis, querulus, laudator temporis acti
Se puero, censor castigatorque minorum.”

11. This aphorism has been differently understood by expositors.
It is generally translated “ zedsdom ἦς as good as an inheritance.” So
Knobel, Ginsburg, Tyler, Zéckler, etc. But in that case one would

Cie

386 The Book of Koheleth, (Ch. vii. 11-14.

have expected the writer to have expressed himself rather in the
terms of Prov. viii. rz. The real sense of the passage is the most
natural one, and that which is assigned to it by the LXX., Vulg.,
Targ., etc, “ wisdom ts good along with an inherttance.” The saying
corresponds with that of Menander, μακάριος ὅστις οὐσίαν καὶ νοῦν
ἔχει: χρῆται yap οὗτος εἰς ἃ δεῖ ταύτῃ καλῶς. It is no objection to this
view that Koheleth in other passages declares all to be vanity. He
speaks here of that which is useful while men are alive and behold
the light of the sun. The proverb, as Delitzsch observes, is formed
exactly on the lines of that in Aboth, ii, 2, “IN TY] Oy MIA THON ney
beautiful is the study of the Law combined with worldly occupation. In
the second clause of the verse, 17 is to be rendered as a noun signi-
fying advantage. See Glossary,s.v. Herzfeld, Hitzig and Hengsten-
berg, however, translate that clause “‘and even better” is the possession
of wisdom “‘for those who behold the sun.” The former exposition
best harmonizes with the verse which follows.

12. Some commentators regard the particle in bya as the 2essentia ;

but Delitzsch preferably considers bya like >¥3 of Jonah iy. 5, and
translates, iz the shadow ts wisdom, in the shadow ts money.” That is,
he who possesses wisdom finds himself in a shadow, shielded from
many dangers, and similarly the man who has possession of money.
Compare Ps. xci. 1; cxxi. 43 Isa. xxx. 2, 3} ΧΧΧΙΪ. 2} χχχίν. τ, etc.

13. See remarks on p. 145. Comp. chap. i τς. M89, see, is
here used almost in the signification of consider, Hitzig takes ‘> in
the sense of ¢Aa¢, and so extracts the sense “that no one can
straighten,” etc. So also Ginsburg. But this can scarcely be the
meaning of ‘3, which is simply “for who can,” etc. The idea of
the verse is, submit yourself to the arrangements of Divine provi-
dence, for it is impossible for you to alter them. The LXN. and
Vulg. gave a false turn to the passage, under the impression, which
is shared by the Targ., that Koheleth is speaking of physical defects
of the body, but the passage has a far deeper significance. ΤᾺΝ,
has ore τίς δυνήσεται κοσμῆσαι ὃν ἂν ὃ Θεὸς διαστρέψῃ αὐτόν ; Vulg.
“μοί nemo possit corrigere quem ille despexerit.”

14. Compare on this verse Sirach. xiv. rg. 3302 ΠῚ, δὲ in good
spirits (comp. Ps, xxv. 13), #¢g. chap. ix. 7, 330-253, t Kings vill.
66; ‘2102. This second clause is best understood with Gins-
burg, Zockler and Delitzsch, “consider that even God hath made thts

Ch.vii. 14-16.) Cretical and Grammatical Coniim. 287

(ée. the day of evil) as well as that,” the day of good. So Job ii. 10,
“What, shall we receive good at the hands of God, and shall we
not receive evil?”

The final clause, ‘ that man may find nothing after him,” is easy to
translate, but not so easy to explain. Zéckler, with others, considers
the meaning to be that man does not know that which lies before
him. But "08 is used always with reference to that which happens
after this present life (chap. iii. 22; vi. 22; Job xxi. 21). Hitzig
explains the text to mean that God designs man after his death to
be done with all things, hence He puts upon him evil in the period
of his life, and permits it to alternate with good, instead of punishing
him after death. This idea is opposed, however, to the teaching of
Koheleth respecting a future judgment. Delitzsch explains the verse
to mean that God causes man to have experience of both good and
evil here in order that he may pass through the whole school of life ;
and that when he departs therefrom, there may be no experience
outstanding which he has not encountered. The writer seems to us
even to go further, and to assert that God has so mixed up this pre-
sent life with good and evil that man cannot find out by his own
powers, or by all his meditations on the present state, what the lot
of mankind will be in a future state of existence. ‘The secrets of the
state after death lie utterly beyond the ken of mortal man. The
contemplation of the present life with its mixture of good and evil
affords no clue whatever to the future.

15. Sonny, Zéckler explains this as ‘“ everything possible,” every-
thing that can come under consideration. Luther, Vaihinger, etc.,
better “all sorts of things.” The “all” is no doubt afterwards spoken
of as falling under two heads; but this fact does justify the trans-
lation “both,” given by Preston and Ginsburg. “716 days of my
vanity.” Compare chap. vi. 12. Some have interpreted this as a
penitential expression on the part of Solomon. But it is unnecessary
to comment on such an interpretation, The 3 in ἸΡΊΥΞ and inv72
is to be translated with Herzfeld, Delitzsch, etc., as equivalent to 2,
ie. ἐπι spite of. Delitzsch pertinently adduces 177373, Deut. i. 32.
The translation “through,” “ by means of,” defended by Hitzig, does
not harmonize with what follows. JN is used both with and
without the following 0%). So chap. viii. r2, with verse 13.

16. By 7297 ΡΝ too just, according to Heiligstedt, is meant too
sharp and bitter in passing judgment on others. Koheleth, how-

388 The Book of Koheleth. (Ch. vii. 16.

ever, probably had in view the tendency to asceticism prevalent in
his.day, which drove men to deny themselves all pleasures through
fear of sin. There is always danger of exaggeration in matters of
religion, ὈΞΠΠΠ δ, On the form of imperf. hithp. vid. Ges.-
Kautzsch, § 54, rem. 1. Do not show thyself too wise. Compare
Exod. i. 10. On this signification of the hithpael, compare PINT
to show oneself strong, 2 Sam. x. 123 AAS, to show oneself angry,

Deut. 1. 37; Saonn, to act sublilly, Ps. cv. 25. Some would render
“ affect not to be wise,” but this translation is not in accordance with
the general usage of the hithpael (although the conjugation has
that signification in Prov. xiii. 7), and does not suit here. The trans-
lation clement, merciful, assigned here to P1¥ by the Targ., the
Midrash Koheleth, and other Jewish authorities, is unwarranted.
Even in Dan. iv. 24 APTS is not ἐλεημοσύνη. div'N: The form
has two anomalies, (1) the assimilation of the final Π in the 14 of the
hithpoel (Ges.-Kautzsch, ὃ 54, 2; Kalisch, § xlvi. 8 4), and (2) the
hithpoel is the only reflexive form of the finite verb which preserves
the tzere in pause. Comp. Ges.-Kautzsch, ὃ 54, rem. 1. The infini-
tive hithpael has tzere in pause, as 2 Chron. xx. 6; Isa. xxviii. 20;
Ix. 213; ΙΧ]. 3; so also the participle, Isa. xxx. 23; Job xv. 20. See
Konig, Lefrg., p. 350; Stade, Lehrd., § τ2ο 4; Bottcher, Lehrd.,
§ 1030. Hitzig, followed by Ginsburg, renders, “ thou wilt only
make thyself to be forsaken.” But this is scarcely the meaning. Nor
is the LXX. rendering, μήποτε ἐκπλαγῇς, or that of the Vulg. ve od-
stupescas, at all suitable.

There is no necessity to regard this with Plumptre, as “a distinct
reproduction of one of the current maxims of Greek thought, μηδὲν
ἀγάν (ne guid nimis, “ nothing in excess”), of Theognis, 402, and of
Chilon (Dzog. Laert., 1. i. § 41). The thought is similar, but far
from being identical. Nor is there a reference, as Zockler imagines,
to the differences between the Pharisecs and Sadducees, already,
perhaps, beginning to develope themselves, ‘Ihe contrast in this
and the next verse between ΠΡῚΝ and Ye was not, as Delitzsch
points out, one of the differences between those parties; the over-
straining of the Pharisees referred to the ceremonial and not to the
moral law. One may compare the well-known aphorism, semmum
jus summa injurta; or the Aristotelian doctrine, that virtue lies in the
iniddle mean, μεσύτης δὲ δύο κακιῶν, τῆς μὲν καθ᾽ ὑπερβολήν, τῆς δὲ κατ᾽

Ch. vii. 16-18.) Crttical and Grammatical Comm. 389

ἔλλειψιν (LZthic. Nicom., ii. 6), which is repeated by Ovid, Jfefam.,
ii, 137, “medium tenuere beati, medio tutissimus ibis”; and by
Horace, “‘virtus est medium vitiorum utrinque reductum ” (Φ 2:4.
i. 18, 9).

17. According to Zockler, Koheleth does not here commend
a certain moderation in wickedness as allowable, but, recognising
the fact that all men are more or less sinful by nature (verses 20-22),
he warns his readers against malicious wickedness. Delitzsch, in
allusion to the original meaning of the verb, regards the aphorism
to mean, while avoiding a narrow rigorism do not be too lax. This
is, indeed, the sense of the passage; but the difficulty of thus trans-
lating the passage lies in the fact that there is no instance in which
the verb is used in such a signification. Plumptre imagines that
“the difficulty vanishes, if we will but admit that the writer might
have learnt the art of a playful irony from his Greek teachers.” It
was not, however, necessary to have recourse to Greek teachers to
learn irony. Herzfeld translates, “de not too unrighteous,” and ex-
plains it as a caution not to lose oneself too much in worldly affairs.
Herzfeld does not, however, go the length of Ibn Ezra, who affirms
“that wicked here means to be engaged in worldly matters.” See
Ginsburg. While it is clear from other passages that Koheleth does
not wink at any indulgence in “‘little sins,” as they are termed, it
can scarcely be questioned that he is in the text before us warning
men against excess in wickedness, and that he was led into this
mode of expression by the aphoristic form in which the former verse
was cast. One might be tempted to compare the warning of St.
James, to “ put off all filthiness and περισσείαν κακίας " (chap. i. 21),
which certainly was never meant to convey the idea that κακία in
any sense or shape was to be willingly retained. Proverbial expres-
sions are not to be measured too exactly. Compare the remarks on
p. 205. The man is a “fool” who permits himself by ungodly ex-
cesses to be swallowed up in the waves of sensuality, which drown
many before their time. If it be borne in mind that Koheleth speaks
in this verse from the practical standpoint of a “ man of the world,”
in the good sense of that term, there is no need to be astonished
at his warning, or to be offended at the terms in which it is set forth.

18. “It is good that thou shouldest lay hold on this” course,
namely the plan of pursuing with moderation the paths of righteous-
ness and wisdom, “and also that thou shouldest not withdraw from

390 The Book of Koheleth. [Chi vii; 78, τό

the other” course, namely, that of avoiding’all those excesses which
prove ruinous to many. Compare 1 Pet. iv. 4. Very differently
Kleinert, who refers the ΠῚ and ΠῚ to what follows, the first “this”
referring to “he that fears God escapes all;” the second to the
clause, ‘‘ wisdom gives more strength to a wise man,” etc. But such
long and involved sentences are not characteristic of our writer.
The last clause of the verse has been explained, ‘‘ Ae that fears God
shall come out of them all,” that is, will escape “all the perplexities of
this life” (Zjder, Bullock) caused by over-rigorism on the one hand
and over-laxity on the other. Zdéckler similarly supposes the writer
to allude to the evil consequences of a hypocritical righteousness,
and of a defiant immorality. The construction of δὴ here with the
accusative has been often compared to that in Gen. xliv. 4; Exod.
ix. 29, 32, etc. But the comparison, as Ginsburg has noted, is
“inapposite,” for the sense of the phrase is not identical. The
translation of Hitzig, though adopted by Ginsburg (“ zw#l? make his
way with both”), introduces an expression unexampled in Biblical
literature. Delitzsch explains the verb in the final clause after the
usage of the Mishna, in which &¥* often occurs in the meaning of
fulfilling one’s duty. Eig. WIND RS, he fulfilled his duty, lit.
went out of (escaped) the hands of his duty, by a performance
thereof; or also elliptically T2881, he fulfils thereby his duty,
MINIVAN, he does not thereby fulfil his duty. See Levy, Weuhed.
und Chald. Worterbuch, s.v. δῆ, Hence. the passage means, “ Ae
that fears God fulfils them all,” te. the duties previously mentioned,
and avoids the extremes on both sides. Compare our Lord’s
remarks in Matt. xxil. 23. The truly pious man keeps “the golden
mean.”

The LXX. translate somewhat freely, but there is no reason to
suppose that they had a different reading. The Vulg. erroneously
supposes the writer to speak of the duty of supporting the upright
man and not deserting him, ‘‘ bonum est te sustentare justum, sed et
ab illo ne subtrahas manum tuam.,”

το. ΤΣ 15. either transitive, as Ps. Ixvili. 29, to strengthen, or here
followed by i better rendered intransitively, proves itself strong.
wt" is akin to the Assyrian §a-lat, which is used both in the sense of
1 stadtholder and a commander, See Schrader, Ketlinschriften und
das AT, 1st edit, p. 370. [The 2nd edition of this important

Ch. vii. 19-22.] Critical and Grammatical Comm. 391

work is now announced as ready.] There is probably an allusion
here to some political or other arrangements of the time with
which we are imperfectly acquainted. Tyler remarks that ten means
a full number, “comp. Gen. xxxi. 7; Job xix. 3. In the Mishna
(dMegitlah, i. 3) a great city is defined as one in which there are ten
men of leisure. Ten men were required for the formation of a
synagogue.”

20. There is a reference here to the words used in the prayer of
Solomon, τ Kings vili. 46. 2) PR OIN'D is for DIN PX 3, for the
sake of emphasis. The connexion between this verse and its con-
text has given rise to much difference of opinion. See remarks on
p. 147. It is unnatural to consider that the writer speaks of wisdom
as protecting against the justice of God by teaching man his sinful-
ness even in his best estate. Hitzig and Delitzsch seem to have
caught the true sense of the passage in supposing the thought of the
writer to be, that man is fallible, and the. wisest at times commit
‘mistakes, but their wisdom enables them to get the better of their
mistakes and protects them against the evil consequences which
happen in such cases to the unwise. This exposition not only con-
nects the passage with what precedes, but also with that which fol-
lows. For the wise man who is conscious of having made mistakes
himself, and of having been guilty of transgression, will act kindly
and leniently to his fellows, and not make them offenders for a
word. Comp. Isa, xxix. 21. See Delitzsch on the latter passage,
which Cheyne would, however, expound differently.

21. Do not pay attention (lit. g/ve not thy heart; see note on chap.
i. 13) to evil reports about other persons, which people in general
(not only the zzgodly, which nominative the LXX., Targ., Syr., here
supply before the indeterminate verb 21), vid. Ges.-Kautzsch, § 137,
3) rashly circulate without examining at all into their truth or false-
hood. There is no necessity with some commentators to restrict
the application of the passage by mentally’ supplying “about thy-
self.” Compare on this passage, Marc. Aurel, Lib. vi. 20. 5p.
This is no Greecism, vid. Ewald, § 284 ὁ.

22, 03°2, The D3 is to be connected with 729. Delitzsch com-
pares on its position here, Hosea vi. 11; Zech ix. 11 (see crit.
comm. at end of my Bampton Lectures, p. 571), and even Job ii. το.
man GOYA, Accusative of time, not the accusative of the object.

392 The Book of Koheleth. (Ch. vii 22-24.

On the inversion of the clause for emphasis, see Ewald, § 336 ὁ.
Compare ver. 20; chap. iii. 13; v.18. 129, Compare τ Kings
ii. 44. Johnston (Zeatise, p. 109) considers the fact that this phrase
is only found in that passage and in Prov. xiv. ro (and in Koh. vill. 5)
to be an argument in favour of the Solomonic authorship, but see p. 87.

ANDI. Delitzsch observes in his critical notes on the text that
the FAS should, according to the Masora, on account of the half
pause, have the accent on the penult, and not on the last syllable,
AN, as in the ordinary text. The K’ri gives the full form, 77%.

The LXX. has here ὅτι πλειστάκις πονηρεύσεταί σε (Knobel con-
jectures that they read YI) instead of YT}, or the imperf. of YP), καὶ
καθόδους πολλὰς κακώσει καρδίαν σου. Montfaucon observes (see
Field’s Hexaf/a) that in this passage two versions are combined, the
first being that of the LXX., the latter that of Aquila, who con-
stantly renders OYB by κάθοδος. He observes that many of Aquila’s
renderings have been foisted into the text of the LXX. See our
remarks on pp. 51, 52.

23. ΠΌΣΙΝ WN. This is the only instance in the book where
the cohortative occurs. It expresses here strong resolve, “7 sazd,
wise will I become.” Tt must not be rendered “ 7 have become wise,”
or, what is equivalent, by sapéo, as Rosenmiiller, who explains it,
“jam mihi persuadebam me ad fastigium sapientize adscendisse.”
Symm. well renders: ὑπέλαβον σοφὸς γενέσθαι. Koheleth determined
to increase his natural wisdom, and to unravel the perplexities of
this life, but he found the attempt vain. Ginsburg considers the
two verbs are subordinated in accordance with the principle ex-
plained in Ges.-Kautzsch, ὃ 142, 3 ¢ But this can scarcely be
regarded as an instance of that construction, Ginsburg’s rendering,
« wished to be wiser,” is weak,

24. See our remarks on p. 202. Delitzsch rightly regards ΠῚ ΠΡ ΤΙ
as expressing an idea in itself, “chad which qwas,” or “ that which
exists,” chap. 1. 9; ili. 153 vi. τὸ ; in the former signification forming
a contrast to ΠΕ ΠΡ, “ that which will be,” chap. viii 75 x. 14
(comp. ill. 22); in the latter, the opposite to that which does not
exist, because it has yet to come into being. So Hengstenberg
explains it “ that which has being,” wisdom being τῶν ὄντων γνῶσις
ἀψευδής, Wisd. vii. 17. The ancient versions have misunderstood
the author's meaning. The translation of Rosenmiiler, de Wette,
Knobel, and others, “ what ¢s far and deep” does not so suit or

Ch. vii. 24-26.) Cretical and Grammatical Comm. 393

harmonise with the order of the Hebrew. Nor does the view ot
Zockler commend itself to our judgment, namely, that the author
here refers to wisdom, “ far is it what she is,” 2.4. the real innermost
essence of wisdom is far from human comprehension. Comp. Job
xxviii. 12 ff.; Sirach xxiv. 38, 39; Baruch ii 15 ff. On the repeti-
tion of the adjective to express the superlative degree, see Kalisch,
§ 75, 8; Ges.-Kautzsch, ὃ 110, 2, rem.

25. ‘MAD, See chap, ii, 20, 12) is not to be connected with the
preceding "8, as the majority of interpreters have done. The word
caused difficulty to the ancient interpreters. Hence arcse the read-
ing found in many MSS., '253, which seems to have been that of
the Targ., Symm., as quoted by Jerome (sensu meo), and Vulg. anémo
meo. The A.V. and Luther have freely rendered, “and I applied my
heart,” as if there was no copula before the 125, The Heb. accen-
tuation also connects *J8 with nao and disconnects the latter from

nyt, But such an expression is without a parallel. Ibn Ezra,
Herzfeld, Moses Stuart and Delitzsch connect the vb) with the
following word, “and my heart (my longing) was to know.” minds,
See n. on chap. i. 132. ᾿3ΦΠ, See Glossary. In the phrase ny

203 yuh, the first accusative is that of the object, and the second is
the predicate, “ 20 know wickedness to be folly.” See Ewald, § 284 ὁ.

Ginsburg incorrectly regards niddin mibann to mean, ¢hat folly which
és madness.

26. ‘IN ΝΥΝῚ, See n. on chap. i. 5, p. 309. On the form, see Ges.-
Kautzsch, § 75, 21 @; Konig, p. 611; Kalisch, § Ixvi. 21. Comp.
chap. vill. 12. The finding of a wife is spoken of as a treasure in
Prov. xviil. 22. Hence, as Delitzsch mentions in his Comm. on
froverbs, it was a custom in Palestine to ask concerning the bride-
groom, N¥1D IW NSD, Ze. has he found (8S) a treasure, as in Proy.
xviii. 22, or has he found a snare (€¥1), as in Koh, viii. 262 See
Talmud Babli, Jedamoth, 63 0; Berachoth,8 a, ΤΥ ἢ, The ad-
jective referring to “ the woman ” afterwards spoken of is masculine,
because it precedes, vid. Ges.-Kautzsch, § 147 ὁ. On the phrase
DNS NN Ws, Hitzig observes that ΝΠ is the copula between the
subj. and pred., which for the sake of contrast precedes the predicate
and gives emphasis to it. It must not be regarded with Ginsburg as
a nominative, nor is ἽΝ to be viewed as a conjunction, 817 T's,

394 The Book of Koheleth. τοι. vii. 26-viii. 1.

or 87] ἜΝ, as Delitzsch observes, is never used as the representative
of the subject previously named and taken up again by a suffix
pronoun referring back thereto. DDN, fetters, chains, so in Judg.
xv. 14. The singular D8 occurs in Jer. xxxvil. 15. See remarks
on this passage on p. 202. Comp. Ben Sira, Heb. fragm. 4 in
Delitzsch’s Gesch. d. χα, Poesie, p. 204, ANVS2 725A 1B.

27. OTA. Comp. verses 14, 29. nbapn PX. So the text

ought to be read with the LXX. and Syr., instead of nbap MN,
The Targ. supports the ordinary reading. The Vulg. déxit Ecclest-
astes cannot be cited for either. See on the name Koheleth, the
prelim, note, pp. 279 ff Delitzsch well observes that Ginsburg vainly
contends in favour of the Masoretic text, that personified wisdom
might be as well represented as a feminine as masculine; but
especially here, where the female sex is spoken of in disparaging
terms, the designation of wisdom as feminine would be peculiarly
unsuitable. Delitzsch also notes that similar errors of transcription
are found 2 Sam. vy. 2; Job xxxvili, 12. In the two latter cases the
error is corrected in the K’ri, and acknowledged by the punctuators.

28. See remarks on p. 203. ‘“‘IVhat my soul hath sought,” not ts
secking, which would require the participle. Delitzsch, in his textual
remarks, observes on πε, that all the piel.forms of ΕῬΞ3 ought Ma-
soretically to have the ? marked with raphe, with the exception of
the imperative P23. Comp. Luzzatto, Gramm. § 4173 Kénig,
Lehrg., p. 188. The consecution of the accents in the clause,
‘neyo Ads 's ΟἽΝ is the same as in Gen. i. 9, except that gereshayim
is used instead of geresh on DUN. For the reason of the latter see
Davidson’s Heb. Acc., § 12, 3, and § 11, 2.

29. 2 ΠῚ ΠῚ 325, The order of the words is here inverted. ΠῚ
is the accus. governed by 13. and sab (see Glossary) qualifies it.

CHAPTER VIII.

1. DINAID, Who ts as the wise man? Not identical with
the expression 039) zo ds wise, Hosea xiv. 10; Ps. cvil. 45,
but “who ts like the wise man?” Comp: Exod. xv. 11, 73493 ἢ
who ts like thee? On the absence of the usual syncope of the article
after 3, see Ges.-Kautzsch, § 35, rem, 2; Kalisch, § xxi. 5; Ewald,
§ 244 a. This omission of the syncope occurs chiefly in the later

Ch viii.) Cretical and Grammatical Comm, 395

books. The accent under "3 in the beginning of the verse is yethibh,
prepositive and disjunctive, hence the daghesh in 73, YT"),
Knobel and others consider the 3 is here understood, but this is
unnecessary. 31 WE, On ®see Glossary. This is translated by
Hitzig and many others, “" ¢he interpretation of the proverb,” namely,
of that which follows. The absence of the article is, however, a
decided objection to this. 737 ought to be rendered indefinitely,
and is better understood in the sense of ¢Azvg, as in chap. i. 8;
vil. 8. The ancient versions render it here word, but inasmuch ‘as
the explanation, or interpretation 193 = ye), refers to the actual
substance of that which is spoken, word and fhing in this case coin-
cide” (Delitzsch).

Wisdom enlightens the face, because the light that is within
makes itself partially visible without (comp. Ps. xix. 9 ; cxix. 130).
D'2B 1, from the comparison of the similar phrases in Deut. xxvili.
50; Dan. vill. 23; Prov. vii. 13, seems to signify frerceness, impu-
dence, coarseness of countenance, or, of the expression of face. Delitzsch
refers in illustration of the idea to the Talmud, Shadbath, 30 ὦ, and
Taanith, 7b. In the latter it is said δὴ DIN 53 ΝΠ 2 ὝΣ 727 WN
poy 72 pond 27 1282 yen wes tym qos yer iniap> oni op my 10
SOU" NON NOW! IPN ON (PV) NN NIB ΤΩΣ TN ind aN TDN
(82), That is, “Rabbah bar Rab Huna says, with respect to every
man who has DYE OMY (mpudence of expression) it is lawful to call
him wycked, for it is written (Prov. xxi. 29) ‘a wicked man hardens
[makes impudent] Ais face.’ Rab Nahman bar Isaac says, it is lawful
to hate him, for it is written ‘and the coarseness [impudence] of his
face is changed,’ Read not [in his case] 8 (changed), but I”
(hated).” This passage of the Talmud proves that the present
reading of our text is the original. The gloss, however, of Rab
Nahman explains the rendering of the LXX., καὶ ἀναιδὴς (reading
W instead of ¥) προσώπῳ αὐτοῦ μισηθήσεται, which is followed by the
Syriac, Dale explains the Heb. verb after the LXX. But the
Masoretic note is correct, ‘7 DIP3’S, “8 zs de place of 1.” Similar
cases occur in 1”? verbs. See Ges.-Kautzsch, § 75, rem. 22; Kalisch,
§ Ixvil. 20; Ewald, § 142 ὦ; Konig, p.532. It is unnecessary to read
the piel, with Zirkel and Hitzig. The proverb of Ben Sira, based
on this saying of Koheleth and alluded to p. 41, has the piel in

the original Hebrew, which has been in this case preserved, 078 ab

396 The Book of Koheleth. (Ch. viii. 1-3.

wp ha aid PAVE ML, “the heart of man changes his countenance
as well to good as to evil.” See Delitzsch, Gesch. der 74. Poeste,
p. 205; Dukes, Rabb, Blumentese, p. 78. Ewald’s translation of this
passage in Koheleth, namely, ‘the brightness of his countenance is
doubled,” must, independently of other considerations, be rejected,
on account of the passages cited which show the real meaning of
wD WY,

2. The ‘28 standing alone at the commencement of the verse is
peculiarly strange. The simplest method of explaining it is to
suppose that ‘AV28 is omitted. If the omission be not regarded
as an ancient blunder of some copyist, the ellipsis is without a
parallel elsewhere. The omission of a>) in Isa. v. g (compare

chap. xxi. 14), or of sox in Jer. xx. 10, are not really similar.
Kleinert notes that Ewald compares 1 Chron. xxviii. 2, which is
scarcely parallel. In his Dichter d. alt. Bundes, 2te Ausg., Ewald
renders, “κά: den Mund des Konigs beachte.” Kleinert himself
renders the “8, my judgment is”; Wale gives, ‘As for me, a royal
word observe,” Neither translation is defensible. The LXX., Syr.
and Targ. solve the difficulty by simply omitting the U8; the LXX.
and Syr. preserving the order of the Heb. words, στόμα βασιλέως
φύλαξον ; but in such a command the verb would have been placed
first. Fidelity even towards heathen monarchs was commanded by
the prophets of Israel, 2 Chron. xxxvi. 13; Ezek. xvii. 15. See our
remarks on p. 222. The mention made by Josephus (déty., xii. 1)
of the fact that Ptolemy Lagus required the Jews in Egypt to take
an oath of allegiance to him does not imply that such an oath had
not previously been exacted by other kings. R. Levi, in the Midrash
Koheleth, refers the passage to God (followed in this particular by
Hengstenberg and others), and explains it as YOUN IN. Similarly
Luther, though rightly considering an earthly sovereign to be spoken
of (Ich halte das Wort des Kénigs), after the Vulg., ego os regis
observe. The Vulg, may have read the word as the participle (1),
which Hitzig views as the correct reading. But the traditional
reading of the word as the imperative is to be preferred, because
Koheleth nowhere adduces his own conduct as an example for
others to follow.

3. On the construction abn "9 nan by, see Ges.-Kautzsch, § 142,
36; Kalisch, ὃ 103, 2; Ewald, § 285 ὁ. Koheleth seeks in this place

Ch. viii. 3-5.] Cretical and Grammatical Comm. 207

to dissuade his readers from casting off their allegiance to the king,
or taking part with the enemies of the monarch under any hasty
impulse whatever. So Rosenmiiller, Knobel and Delitzsch explain

the passage. On this sense of 25} sb, compare Gen. xxxvi. 6, or
Hosea xi. 2, “c¢hey [the prophets] called them, but they [the people]
went away from them (Bi2BI 4959), they sacrificed ta Baalim, and
burned incense to graven images.” Heiligstedt is not justified (on the
slender induction of particulars which is possible in this case) in

maintaining that the niphal of 572 cannot be used in the same sense
as the piel. The explanation given by Zockler and others, namely,
that the clause warns against a timid withdrawal from the royal
presence when the king is unfavourably disposed, does not, in our
opinion, suit the passage. The advice of Koheleth is similar to that
in chap. x. 4. y2 7271 is best explained like verse 5. as “an evil
thing,” not, as several expositors have maintained, “aa evil word.”
3 TY, as is proved by comparison of the phrases in Ps. i. 1; 2 Kings
xxiii. 3; Ps. evi. 23, and Jer. xxiii, 18, might well be used of entering
into a wicked conspiracy against the monarch. The Targum on
this verse supposes that the king referred to is God above, and so
Hengstenberg, Hahn, Dale. But this is opposed to the context, as
is also the idea that Koheleth refers here to cases like that of Cain,
who fled from the presence of the Lord (Gen. iv. 16), or Jonah
(i. 3, εἴα). Hitzig’s translation “do not hesitate at a bad command
(to obey the king),” is contrary to the use of the phrase. He
maintains that the writer intentionally adopts a “servility ” of tone
when speaking of the king, and refers to him in language used
by other writers in reference to God (see'n. on next verse). But
the “servility ” of tone exists only in the imagination of the critic.

4. The author is speaking of a monarch who possesses absolute
power. It is no real argument against this view of the text that
the same phrase which occurs in the second clause of the verse
is applied to God in Job ix. 12; Isa. xlv. 9. Comp. Dan. iv. 32;
Wisd. xii. 125. 183, as Delitzsch observes, is used here in the
beginning of the verse to introduce a reason for the remark made at
the close of the preceding; like ‘¥3, chap. ii: τό, compare Gen. xxxix.
9, 23; Greek, ἐν ᾧ and ἐφ᾽ 6. ede, see Glossary. The use of this
word as an adjective is very peculiar.

5. The commandment alluded to is that of the king mentioned in

398 The Book of Koheleth. [Ch. viii. 5-7.

verse 2, not the Law of God, which some commentators wrongly
consider to be referred to. When Koheleth says that the man who
obeys the king’s command ‘will experience no evil thing,” or that
no harm will come to him, he is, of course, speaking generally (like
St. Paul in Rom. xiii. 1-5), and not contemplating the case of
kings requiring obedience to decrees contrary to the Divine laws,
such as those of Nebuchadnezzar (Dan. iii.) or Darius (Dan. vi.).
The YI} in both clauses of the verse ought to be translated uni-
formly, not as a future in one clause, and a present in the other,
or vice versé, DIN 30 might be either @ zvse heart, or the heart of a
wise man. The connexion of this verse with verse 1 is in favour of
the latter rendering. ‘The writer in the last clause does not assert
that the wise man will wait patiently for a change in the royal
dynasty (he might, in many cases, have to wait long enough !), but
that such a person will wait patiently (Lam. iii. 26) for the time and
the season (chap. ili. 1, 11, 17) of judgment, which God hath put
in His own power. DBYD! MY is regarded by the LXX. as an hen-
diadys, καιρὸν κρίσεως, time of judgment.

6. Four of the sentences in verses 6 and 7 begin with 3. This
opens the door for a variety of interpretations ; because ‘> is sus-
ceptible of different renderings. It is perhaps better, with Delitzsch,
to regard the four ‘3s alike as members of a single chain of proofs.
The sense of this and the following verse is: The heart of the wise
will know the time and judgment and will keep quiet, for (1) there
is a time and a judgment appointed by God in which the wicked
ruler will be duly punished. Comp. chap. iii. 17 ; (2) the wickedness
of man is heavy upon him (man), and will entail its own punish-
ment; (3) No man knows the future, or that which will take place,
and, therefore, no despot is able absolutely to guard himself
against the stroke of vengeance ; for (4) who can tell him how the
vengeance will be brought about; he may look in this direction
and in that for the longed-for information, but in vain (comp. Isaiah
xlvil. 13 ff); one thing, however, is certain, that whilst the wicked
‘Care drowned in their carousing they shall be consumed like stubble
fully dry” (Nahum 1, ro).

The LXX. and Theod. have ὅτι γνῶσις τοῦ ἀνθρώπου πολλὴ ἐπ᾽
αὐτόν, reading ΠΙΣῚ instead of NY, which, however, affords no sense.

7. The paraphrase of the Vulg., though not verbally correct,

Ch. viii. 7,8.) γέρα and Grammatical Comm. 399

expresses the sense of the passage, “ guia :gnorat preterita, et futura
nullo scire potest nuntio.” See note on the previous verse.

8. Koheleth has in the previous verses given four distinct proofs
that the heart of a wise man knoweth time and judgment. He now
proceeds to point out that there are four things known to be impossi-
bilities which conduct to the same conclusion. (1) There is no man
who has power over the wind to check it in its course or to réstrain
its violence. Judgments are often likened to the wind (Isa. xli, 16 ;
Ἰνῖϊ. 12; Jer. iv, 11-13 xxil. 22), and the Divine judgments can be
as little kept back (539) as the mighty wind be prevented from
bursting forth, (2) There is no one who has power over the day
of death, or is able to avert the arrival of that “king of terrors”
(Job xviii. 14); the pestilence walketh forth in darkness, and the
sickness wasteth at noon-day (Ps. xci. 6). (3) There was no dis-,
charge granted from the ranks in time of war under the rigorous law
of Persia, and the Divine law of requital cuts off with equal certainty
all hope of escape from the guilty transgressor; and lastly, (4)
wickedness will not deliver its master. When the hour of Divine
vengeance strikes, the sinner shall receive the meet reward of his
actions. “The wages of sin is death” (Rom. vi, 23).

The word ΠῚ in the first clause has generally been explained by
the commentators, with the Targ. and Vulg., to mean the spirit of
man. Delitzsch’s argument against this interpretation is not satis-
factory, namely, that man has the power to put an end to his own
life at any time by suicide. For the passage, as generally explained,
only asserts the inability of man to deliver himself from death. He
may shorten but he cannot protract his days. But, on the other
hand, Mendelssohn appears to be right in considering that Koheleth
has in view something similar to the three causes of death referred
to by David in r Sam. xxvi. 10; death by the wind, or storm, which
brings with it the plague (1322! 7}, compare 43), the pestilence), or
death in the ordinary course of nature, and death in battle. The
three clauses of Koheleth are not properly speaking parallel (hence
Ginsburg’s objection on this score is invalid). The fourth clause may
be regarded as a general statement including the others. The wind is
not only one of God’s grandest creations (Amos iv. 13), but one of
his special instruments of power (Nahum i. 3); and power over the
wind is one of the things kept in God’s hand and not conceded to
man (Prov. xxx. 4).

400 Lhe Book of Koheleth. [Ch, viii. 8-10.

The LXX., Vulg., and Syr. take foot! as an abstract noun for
fower. So Ginsburg and others; but, as Delitzsch notes, ioey is
rather to be regarded here as the concrete “ruler” (as in Dan. ili.
2 ff. and above in verse 4, and everywhere in the Talmud and Mid-
rash) in contrast with the abstract rei, which is formed after the
analogy of 1738, 1371, 1998, 118, 1292. On NNevip vid. Glossary.
Graetz would read ΕΝ riches, instead of yen, wickedness. The pro-
posed alteration does not suit the passage’ so well as the received
text, to which the ancient versions bear witness. Renan adopts
Graetz’s conjecture in his translation, though he does not specially
notice the alteration of the text in his Appendix. voya is plural,
but might refer to the despetic king. Compare chap. v. 10, 123
V1, 12:4. Prov, 1h. 27,

g. This verse does not, as Renan imagines, begin a new section.
Koheleth refers by nrbs-ns to that which was mentioned before.
ὉΠ is the inf. abs. which is used either adverbially, Ges.-Kautzsch,
§ 131, 2; Kalisch, § 97, 5, or for the same tense of the finite verb
which precedes (ze here the perfect), Kalisch, ὃ 97, 3; Ges.-
Kautzsch, ὃ 131, 4; Ewald, § 351. On the special phrase see
note on chap. 1. 13. ny, Accusative of time, as Jer. li, 33. So
Ewald, Graetz, Delitzsch, Renan, etc. Delitzsch compares P.. iv. 8,
and notes that the relative of ἪΝ NY is like WN DIPD, chap. i. 7;
xi. 3. Many commentators (with the A.V.) erroneously regard nY
as commencing a new sentence, “there is atime, ete.” 19 yy. The
suffix is referred by Symm. (εἰς κακὸν αὐτοῦ), the Vulg., the A. V.,
Grotius, Herzfeld, etc., to the ruler spoken of before, but the LXX.,
Theod. (τοῦ κακῶσαι αὐτόν), Syr., Targ., and most modern commen-
tators refer it correctly to the second noun. See our translation.

το. This verse is beset with difficulties, and a full survey of the
yarious opinions of scholars in ancient and modern times would
occupy more space than is here available. The phrase 'Y7]2 7t' is
rendered by most modern critics “those who acted right,’ i.e. the
righteous, who are supposed to be contrasted with the ungodly men-
tioned in the opening of the verse. This translation can be justi-
fied by an appeal to 2 Kings vii. 9, where. the phrase occurs, 12ND
Dy amy, “we are not acting rightly.” Comp. Gen. xlii. 11. But
most of the ancient versions regard }2 in the second part of the
verse as identical with 19. in the beginning, in the phrase }22 (Symm.

Ch. viii, 10.) Cretzcal and Grammatical Comm. 4οι1

indeed, renders, ὡς δίκαια πράξαντες). In that case the %'P {> Wis
must be rendered, “who did (or, acted) thus.’ The accentuation of
the verse seems to show that the punctuators took the same view.
The main difficulty in the way of regarding the writer as contrasting
the fate of the wicked with that of the godly is, that we must in that
case explain the 183) “and they went in,” or “ entered” (with Hitzig,
Ewald, and Delitzsch, etc.), as an elliptical expression for “ ¢hey
entered into rest,” in reference to Isaiah lvii. 2. But the ellipsis is
harsh. To explain further, with Ewald: and Heiligstedt, the verb
following, sob) (as piel used for the hiphil), as an impersonal 3rd
person, “they cast them (the righteous) away,” ‘is doing violence to
the passage. Ewald explains “the holy place” as “the holy burying-
place ;” but, as Delitzsch observes, no such name for a cemetery can
be discovered amongst the numerous designations in use among the
Jews, See Hamburger, Real-Encyel. fiir Bibel und Talmud, Avtheil.
I, s. v. Grad. Delitzsch explains that phrase of the going forth of
the righteous, probably to a foreign country (compare Amos vii. 17).
He rightly explains the 17? DIP, Aoly place, either as meaning
Jerusalem, termed in the second part of Isaiah, Nehemiah, Daniel,
and St. Matthew (xxvii. 53), the holy city (PPI), or the holy
ground of the temple of God, the τόπος ἅγιος (Matt. xxiv. 15), as
Aquila and Symm. translate the phrase. We explain with Knobel
the coming (383) and going (aby) after the analogy of chap. i. 4,
though we do not agree in other points with his exposition. We
cannot coincide with Ginsburg in explaining the 182 as referring
to the coming back of the wicked in the persons of their children ;
“these wicked ones are perpetuated by their children when they
die.” Our explanation of the verse is, ‘And in such a way (123,
under such circumstances) have I seen wicked men buried [possibly
with the accompaniments of pomp and show ; comp. chap. vi. 3],
and they came (into being), and from the place of the holy (from
Jerusalem) ‘ley went away [one generation coming, and another
going, in constant succession], and they are forgotten [with the greater
part of their oppressive actions] ia the very city where they so acted ;

even this ἐς vanity,” namely, that despite of all their wickedness, there
is no difference often made between the dealings of Providence with
such tyrants and his dealings with other men. (See Job xxi.; Ps,
lxxill.) “The wise man,” however, knows that ‘God shall judge

DD

402 The Book of Koheleth, [Ch. viii. 10-12.

the righteous and the wicked, for there is a time THERE (with the
Most High) for every purpose and every work ” (chap. ili. 17). In
spite of all appearances to the contrary, ‘‘there is a time and a
judgment.” The LXX., Aq. Symm., Theod., and Vulg. read
ΠΣ ἢ, from M2 “and they were praised,” which is the reading
of several Heb. MSS. collated by Kennicott and De Rossi. The
reading harmonises well with our reference of the entire verse to the
ungodly oppressors. On the change of construction in the beginning
of the verse from the participle to the perfect see Ges.-Kautzsch,
§ 134, 2, rem. 2; Ewald, § 350 4. Delitzsch notices that the punc-
tuation 183} instead of 183) is used because the distinctive rebhia
takes the fuller form. Comp. Isaiah xlv. 20 with Job xvii. το.

τι. ἜΝ, Because, as in chap. iv. 3; vi.rz. 09ND. So pointed,
according to Delitzsch, in good MSS. and in the older editions, as
also in Esth. i, 20 ; Dan. iii, 16, The 5 has no daghesh, because of
the ΠΕΡ) preceding. See on D4ND inGlossary. Delitzsch notes that
the long @ of 0308, as Esth. i. 20 shows, is unchangeable. The
word is here in the construct. The zakeph is no objection to this,
for the accents are often used only for the purpose of cantillation,
and in Esth. 1. 4 a similar instance occurs of a zakeph between a
construct state and the governed genitive. The governing word
indeed has rightly a distinctive accent when the genitive governed
which is connected with it consists of several members. Under
such circumstances pashta occurs in Isa, x. 12. See for instructive
examples Isa. xxvili. 1-4. But YI ΠΡΟΜ might be regarded as an
accusative of respect. The ΠΕΣ which precedes 04ND is the fem. of
the participle niphal, and not the 3rd pers. sing. perf, which could
not be construed with 8%. D4N5, which is masc. in the only other
place in which it occurs in Hebrew (namely, in Esth, i. 20, as also in
Chald.) is here to be regarded as feminine. Hitzig would read the
masc. participle ΠΡ, But, as Delitzsch observes, the foreign word

Crs?

DIM, like the Arab. yay paradise, is of both genders (see
Ewald, § 174.8). LXX. ἀπὸ τῶν ποιούντων τὸ πονηρόν, Vulg. conira
matlos, reading 7 wD, 732, properly a noun signifying ast,
is here taken as an adverb, as Num. xvii. 11; Judg. ix. 54.

12. The WX with which the verse commences is to be rendered,
with Hitzig and Delitzsch, decause. The LXX. badly ὃς ἥμαρτεν.
Ewald, followed by Heiligstedt, Zockler, and others, adopts the view

Ch. viii.12-14.] Crztical and Grammatical Comm. 403

of the Vulg., which has attamen, ‘‘ although,” and so our A. V. See
Ewald, § 362 4. Though 7Y8 could thus be rendered in an ante-
cedent sentence (Lev. iv. 22 ; Deut. xviii. 22), the imperfect ought to
follow, and not the participle as here. YM. On form see chap.
vil, 26 and the references there. Hitzig suggests that the punctuation
with seghol is on account of the following guttural. The 7 following
mY ought to have kametz according tothe Masora. M8, a hundred
times, DOVE being understood. Compare NON, Job xl. 5. It is not,
as Delitzsch notes, to be translated with Hengstenberg, an Aundred-
fold, which would require ΘΠ, or, as Ginsburg, after the Targ., a
hundred years, which would be rather O89, se. Πρ, But see Ges.-
Kautzsch, ὃ 120, 1 rem.; Kalisch, ὃ 90, 6. The LXX. (ἀπὸ τότε),
instead of NN seem to have read 18, Aquila, Symm., and Theod.
seem to have read it 9, as they render it by ἀπέθανεν. ‘JN. sup-
ply 0%, See n. on chap. vii. 15. Mendelssohn would supply 35%,
and refer the clause to God. So Vulg. ef per patientiam (scil. Det)
sustentatur, This is also the sense of the transl. of Symm. and
Theod., μακροθυμίας γενομένης αὐτῷς But this is wrong, as appears
by the verse following, and by chap. vil. 15. Jor tt, or for himself,
the dat. ethicus. Our view of the whole verse coincides in the main
with that of Delitzsch, and will be seen from our translation.
Appearances, Koheleth saw clearly enough, were against him, yet
his faith was strong even under all such difficulties, and through it
he was victorious. Comp. 1 John v. 4; and, on the last clause
of the verse, see Jer. v. 22.

13. The A.V. follows correctly the division of the verse given by
the accentuators. So Ewald, Delitzsch, etc. The Vulg. renders the
clause, “sed guasi umbra transeant qué non timent facien Domini,”
This precative rendering is incorrect. But the division of the verse,
by putting the stop in the middle at 0D’, given by the Vulg., has
been followed by Hitzig, Zécklerjand others. Hitzig asks, Is then
the shadow therefore O°)" 7¥?, because it does not 22) N'? They
render the second clause less suitably, “He is as a shadow who
feareth not before God.” Man is often compared to the shadow
that fleeth away, which is the idea of this: passage. Comp. chap.
vi. 123 Ps. cxliv. 4; Wisd. ii. 5. The LXX., led astray perhaps by

the use of δὲ in chap. vii. 12, render οὐ paxpuvel ἡμέρας ἐν σκιᾷ.

14. On “Sy ΡῈ see Glossary, s.v. ¥22.

404 The Book of Koheleth. (Ch. viii. 15-ix. τ.

15. Compare chap. ii. 24; ili, 12, 22; v.17. On myo vid. Glos-
sary. Delitzsch observes either 1219” δ) ΠῚ begins a new sentence,
and the imperfect is then to be rendered imperatively, “ μέ this ac
company him” ; or it is to be connected with the previous infinitives,
and the imperfect is to be translated as a subjunctive, as in our ren-
dering. ‘The Greek versions regard it as an indicative, and so many
modern critics, as Ewald, Ginsburg, Zockler, “‘and thts will cling to
him,” etc., or “thts will follow him.”

16. On ret 1M) and on TY see n. on chap. i. 12. This verse
with that which follows forms one long period, which the Masorites
have rightly divided. 2%’ is governed by the act. part. 19 at the
close of the verse. On the expression to see sleep, compare, with
Rosenmiiller, Terent., Heaufont., Act. iii. Sc: 1. 82 ‘somnum hercle
ego hac nocte oculis non vidi meis.” Rosenmiiller also refers to the
expression of Cicero (Zpist. ad divers., vii. 30), “ fuit mirifica vigil-
antia, qui toto suo consulatu somnum non vidit,” but it must be
noted that Cicero there uses the language of fact not of metaphor.
C.-Caninius Rebilus was made consul for only a portion of a day
by Julius Czesar (p.c. 45); Czesar himself and Antonius entered
into office the very next day. Compare, also, on the expression in
Koheleth, Ps. cxxxii. 4; Prov. vi. 4; Gen. xxxl. 40.

17. Wes be, Ewald proposes here to read 7'8 923, “for all
that,” maintaining that the present reading of the text is meaning-
less. See his LeArb., ὃ 362 ¢. Ewald is partly supported by the
rendering of the LNN. ὅσα ἄν, Vulg. ef guanto plus. Similarly Syr.
But, as Hitzig and Delitzsch remark, the alteration is unnecessary.
The latter observes that W's bea j 15 Hebrew exactly equivalent to
the Aram. 7 5513, as in Onk., Gen. vi. 3, ΔΒ PINT boa, because that
they are flesh; and further that Rashi and Kimchi (AZich/ol, 47 6) have
rightly explained it by wy bravia and y "3v2, Compare with the
contents of these verses the exclamation of the Apostle, Rom. xi. 33.

CHAPTER IX.

x. 3 5 nnd, See ἢ. on chap. i. 12. “ΠΔΟῚ inf const. of M3
after the analogy of verbs 1'Y. vid. Ges.-Kautzsch, ὃ 67, rem. 3,
Kalisch, ὃ Ixii. 12. Knobel and others take the inf. with ? as used
here, like the inf. absol. for the finite verb. But see Ges,-Kautzsch,

Chix. 11 Critical and Grammatical Conn. 405

§ 132, 3, rem. 1; Ewald, § 237 ¢ ΝΠ must be understood before
935, as in chap. iii. το, M7 before ΠΡ ΠΡ, It is a mistake to sup-

pose that the inf. const. with 5 is used in place of the finite verb.
Delitzsch, in his comm. on Habakkuk, i. 17, observes that the inf.
with > is used in three significations : τι Mi] may mean (1) est
facturus, “he is about to do,” (2) est faciendum, “it is to be done,”
and (3) est faciendo, “he is in the position of doing.” See this
construction well explained in Driver’s Hebrew Tenses, 2nd edit.,
Append. v. pp. 300, 301. 73 has the meaning of sifting, testing,
thoroughly examining into, not that of digging through (which
Plumptre assigns to it), but of separating and dividing one thing
from another, and thus thoroughly understanding each. See Miihlau
and Volck’s Ges. Lex. The LXX. have translated the phrase as if
they had read 7e "ΟῚ, καὶ καρδία μου σύμπαν εἶδε τοῦτο (on the
σύμπαν see note on p. 51), SoSyr |p. δο. On O73Y vid.
Glossary, s.v. 132. See remarks on p. 189, where we have explained
the passage as meaning that no man knows what will be the objects
of his love or hatred in life. Man fixes his love or hatred on
persons or things, not according to his own self-determination, but
according to the circumstances under which he comes into relation
with them, which, rightly or wrongly, draw forth his love or hatred,
Man is no automaton, but a being tested by circumstances, which
cause him either to manifest his character to others, or reveal himself
to himself. In the expression “ αὐ lies before them” the emphasis is
to. be put on the word “αὐ. The meaning is not that men are
deprived of all freedom whatever, but that events of all kinds lie
before them, and God arranges that which shall happen to them.
But the moral and religious condition of man is not thought of here
by the writer. See our note on chap. vi. 11 Others have explained
the text to mean that men do not know whether they will be the
objects of the Divine love or hatred. But, as Delitzsch notes, the
expressions “love” and “hatred” are too general for this. More-
over the translation does not suit the general drift of the passage.
This, however, substantially is the sense given by the Vulg. “et
tamen nescit homo utrum amore an odio dignus sit.”

Knobel compares Marc. Aurelius, xil. 11. ἡλίκην ἐξουσίαν ἔχει
ἄνθρωπος μὴ ποιεῖν ἄλλο, ἢ ὅπερ μέλλει ὁ θεὸς ἐπαινεῖν καὶ δέχεσθαι πᾶν,

3 Ξ ,
ὃ ἂν νέμῃ αὐτῷ ὁ θεός.

406 The Book of Koheleth. (Cites 8.

2. The first clause of this verse in the ix, and the first word in
Syr., Aq., Symm. is connected with the preceding. ‘The Syr., Aq,

Symm. in place of 53m have read here 937 (Syr. Loa, Aq. ματαιότης,
Symm. ἄδηλα). The reading of the present text of the LXX.,
pataiorns ἐν τοῖς πᾶσι, seems to be compounded of Aquila and the
original LX X. (compare note on chap. ii. 25; vil. 22). The Vulg.
rendering has similarly incorporated the ἄδηλα of Symm. at the end of
the clause : “sed omnia in futurum servantur incerta.” The 237 at
the commencement of the verse is to be regarded as neuter, 216 whole,

everything which happens, referring to the Ὁ5Π in the previous verse ;

the 59 in 539 on the other hand refers to persons, asin chap. x. 3, “αὐ
(is) like that which (is, or happens) to all.” There is no difference,
speaking generally, in the circumstances in, which men are placed;
all-are on the whole treated alike. Men are here classified into five
pairs of different individuals, each contrasted with the other (comp.
Isaiah xxiv. 2), the righteous and the wicked, the clean and the un-
clean (both ceremonially and morally, comp. Hos. v. 3; Ezek. xxxvi.
25), the man who brings sacrifices and he who does not, the good man
and the sinner, the profane swearer (see Exod. xx. 7; Matt. v. 34 ff)
and he who keeps aloof from such profanity, reverencing the solemn
oath (Isa. lxv. 16). The construction is, however, varied in each
of the last two couplets. The participle (87) follows here the ac-
cusative which it governs, as in Isa. xxii. 2; Nah. ili. 1. Delitzsch
compares with 8%! mI the expression of the Mishna SON ΝῊ

ἃ. boa ΨῈ nt, Knobel, Ginsburg and others, after the Vulg. oc
est pessimum inter alia, regard this as a kind of superlative, See
Ewald, § 313 ¢; Kalisch § 89, 6, 7. But the article would in such
a case naturally have been used, as in Cant. i. 8; Josh. xiv. 15;
Judg. vi. 15 ; although perhaps not absolutely necessary, Obad. 2;
Lam. i. 1; though it may be questioned whether in the latter pas-
sages the superlative sense is intended. In our passage the super-
lative meaning is unnecessary, and, indeed one might almost say,
opposed to chap. vill. 11. The word nbn, as Delitzsch observes,
might be an adj., for this adjective is often construed with an ac-
cusative, Deut. vi. 11; xxxill. 23; xxxiv. 9; and is only once (Jer.
vi. 11) construed with a genitive. [The English translation of
Delitzsch’s Comm. on Eccl. here, as in several other places, expresses
a sense exactly opposed to the meaning of the German original.]

ch. ix. 3.) Cretical and Grammatical Comm. 407

But, as Delitzsch remarks, inasmuch as it is not a state but an act
which is here spoken of, it is better to regard sop as a verb, as in
chap. viii. 11. mibdim, On this noun see ἢ. chap. 1. 17. Ac-
cording to the Heb. accentuation found in five MSS. collated by
Michaelis, and in two of the best MSS. noticed by Delitzsch (which
have Yn with kadma instead of ¥ with geresh), the ‘7 would be
regarded as a genitive combined with the previous word. So Vulg.
and Symm. as quoted by Jerome. But the LXX, Syr, Aq. and
Targ. are correct in viewing it as commencing a new sentence.
WS may be explained with Hitzig, Ewald, etc., after Jer. li. 46,
afterwards (Vulg. post hac), the suffix being taken in a neuter sense ;
but, inasmuch as the expression is used in chap. iil. 22; vi. 12.5 vil.
14, to refer to man, it is perhaps better to take it also here, with
Delitzsch, in the same sense, “after him,” z.e. after man’s life is
ended. The plural suffix in 032 is no objection to this, as there
is the same mixture of singular and plural in verse 1, in chap. iii. 12,
etc. The long-suffering of God with sinners leads them too often
to indulge in sin almost without restraint. during their lives, and
then they go away to the dead. (See p. 189.) Renan maintains that
such passages as this prove the writer to have had no faith whatever
in a state of existence after death. According to his idea, Koheleth
conceived the Divine Being as so great as not to be troubled, unless
in case of gross wickedness, with man’s actions. The notion of man's
immortality was in his view one of the greatest follies, and, so far
from being a pious dogma, was an offence against God and common
sense. The common people believed in vefaim, ghosts, and appa-
ritions, who could sometimes be evoked by sorcery, but Koheleth here
laughs at all such folly. Renan regards chap. xii. 7 as teaching only
the separation of soul and body, not the continued existence of the
former. He has seen clearly enough that the denial of a future
state is almost equivalent to a denial of the justice of God, for the
righteous are not always rewarded or the wicked punished in this
world. But Koheleth, according to him, stopped short of drawing
any such conclusions. As a practical man, his “ religion,” such as it
was, did not lead him to seek a solution of such difficulties. Renan’s
conception of Koheleth’s opinions we hold to be distinctly opposed
by that writer's statements in chap. iii. and in chap. viii. τα ff., as well
as in other places, See our remarks on pp. 192-195 and on pp.
197-200.

408 The Book of Koheleth. [Ch. ix. 4.

14. The attempts to extract a suitable meaning from the reading
-of the K’thib 173 are utterly vain. Rosenmiiller and others render
“nam guts (est) gud eligatur, ut scilicet non ad mortuos abeat, 2.6.
nemo excipitur.” And so Ginsburg, “for who is excepted ?” attach-
ing the words to the end of the preceding verse. It is true that if
the word be read al? (or 103% as Hengstenberg), it will mean,
“cho is chosen out,” but the idea of being excepted by no means
naturally follows from this. Scarcely better is the rendering of Elster
(reading 1923), ‘for who is he that can choose, ¢.e. to whom does the
choice stand open?” ‘The K’ri reading has 72%, by transposition
of the two middle letters of the word, and this is upheld by the
LXX. τίς ὃς κοινωνεῖ πρὸς πάντας τοὺς ζῶντας ; and the Syr. More
freely Symm. τίς γὰρ εἰς ἀεὶ διατελέσει ζῶν, rendered by Jerome, gus
enim potest in sempiternum perseverare vivens ? Still further from the
original words, though evidently still based on the reading of the K’ri,
is the rendering of the Vulg. emo est gut semper vivat. The K’r is
mentioned and explained in the Jer. Talmud (Berachoth, 13 a, col. 2):
“Rabbi Johanan said, For why is it that 731N’ (31?) is read instead
of M3’, except that all the living have hope (N03), for a man has
expectation (TPM) as long as he is alive, but when he is dead his
expectation perishes. For what foundation is there in the death of a
wicked man, for his expectation perishes.” See Strack, Proleg. Crit.
in V.T. Heb., p. 82. The accentuation of the verse, which cuts off
13 from what follows by the great distinctive accent zakeph katon,
has been regarded by Rosenmiiller as in favour of the reading of the
K’thibh. But Delitzsch points out that the accentuation does not
really refer to the textual reading, but proceeds from some such
explanation (however contrary it may be to the context) as the
following : he who will be received into communion with God has to
hope for the full life on the other side of the grave. So the Targ.
for who ts the man who associates QADD8 51) himself with all the
words of the Law, and has hope to obtain the life of the world to
come?” The interrogative TEN, guis est gui, acquires from that
signification the force of a relative gw/sgu7s (quicunque), and may be
taken in the same way as here (compare the single Ὁ chap. v. 9), in
both senses in Exod. xxxii. 33; 2 Sam. xx. 11; the latter of these
two passages is in the form of its apodosis’similar to that before us.
The sense of the passage seems to be, Ae who is gotned to all the
living, i.e. to all living beings of whatever kind they may be, by

Ch. ix. 4-7.] Crttical and Grammatical Comant. 409

being himself a partaker of the grace of life, Aas hope, for a living dog
is better than a dead lion. The Ὁ is used before 293 for the sake of
emphasis. See Ewald, § 310 4; 1 Chron. 11. 2; vil. 1; 2 Chron. vil.
21; Isa.xxxii.1. Rosenmiiller, Herzfeld, and Graetz prefer to regard
> as used in its usual signification, like Symm. κυνὶ ζῶντι βέλτιόν
ἐστιν ἢ λέοντι τεθνηκότι. But in that case, as Delitzsch observes, the
Hebrew should have been Nan ANNA HD Ὁ 210 Ἢ abo, The dog was
made use of by the Hebrews as an emblem of reproach (1 Sam. xvii.
433; 2 Sam. iii, 8; ix. 8; xvi. 9), while the lion was regarded as an
emblem of greatness and power (Isa. xxxi. 4), as being the hero
among beasts (Prov. xxx. 30). Koheleth in other places speaks of
death as preferable to life (chap. iv. 2, 3; vil. 1), when taking a view
of the sorrows which so often fall to the lot.of humanity ; here from
another standpoint he regards life as preferable to death, because it
affords opportunities of enjoyment.

5. See remarks on pp. 197 ff. ‘11NO—DIN, comp. chap. v. 13.
Knobel calls attention to the paronomasia between nay and 593%.
As to the difficulty which has often been raised as to such expressions
being used by a writer who had any belief in a future state, see pp.
199 ff.

6. The expressions, DN208, their Jove, etc., need not, with Knobel
and Ginsburg, be explained of the affections themselves which men
have while they live; nor with Luther as if Koheleth affirmed that
one does not love or hate or envy the dead any more ; nor simply
that they have no more objects to love or to hate, for such senti-
ments have ceased for them, because as D'85" they are destitute
of all affections and interests. So Rosenmiiller, Zockler, Delitzsch,
comp, Isa, xxxviil. 18. See the paraphrase of this passage given in
our remarks on pp. 197 ff.

The rendering of the Vulg. in the second clause, ec habent partem
in hoc seculo, is erroneous. It is, however, followed by Luther, who
translates obiy here by woréd, and is also found in the Targ. In-
dependently of other considerations (see note on chap. iii, 11) the
Hebrew would require to be 173 obiya,

7. It is vain to try to evade the real meaning of the passage
by explaining it with Hengstenberg, as containing the voice of the
spirit in opposition to the voice of the flesh. But at the same time
Koheleth does not here set forth the doctrines of Epicurus, as many

410 The Book of Koheleth. [Ch. ix. 7-9.

commentators affirm, Inasmuch as he had:no bright hopes to com-
municate with respect to the future state, Koheleth simply urges
upon his readers the practical wisdom of seeking to enjoy cheerfully
the present (see remarks on p. 201), and to have no scruples what-
ever in so doing, provided they remembered in all things to “fear
God and keep His commandments,” for God has long ago permitted
such enjoyments, and designed in His good Providence such
pleasures for man on earth as the rightful use of food and wine.
So rightly Ibn Ezra, Hitzig, Delitzsch, etc. YO may be taken
with Hitzig as a singular (comp. 1 Sam. xix. 4), but it may equally
well be translated as plural. The works referred to are the eating
and drinking just mentioned. No reference whatever is here made
to moral conduct, as some commentators suppose. The writer is
addressing men as men. God has graciously given man certain
capacities of enjoyment of which he may lawfully make use, without
torturing himself with self-imposed scruples. 133 a/ready, long ago,
is emphasized by being accentuated with the zakeph katon. Com-
pare on the thought, chap. il. 24; iil. 12, 13, 223; v.17 (A.V. v.
18) ; vili. 15.

8. White garments used to be worn in times of joy, after days of
sorrow were over (2 Sam. xii. 20; xix. 24; comp. Rev. ili. 4, 5 5 vil.
9). Fragrant oil was also used on such occasions (Ps. xxill. 5 ; xlv.
8; Prov. xxvii. 9; Isa. Ixi. 3). Knobel and Ginsburg give many
references to Greek and Roman writers. The Talmud and Midrash
explain the directions here to refer to a pure and holy life. In
Shabb., 114 a, in the course of explanations:about the things belong-
ing to baths, the anecdote is narrated that R. Jannai said to his sons,
“bury me not in white robes, nor yet in black robes; not in white
robes, because I may not be of the righteous, and (then) I shall be
as a bridegroom among the mourners, nor in black, because I may
be‘of the righteous, and I shall be as a mourner among the bride-
grooms ; but (bury me) in robes scented with fine oil (pans 533,
in vestibus oleartts), which come from the district of the sea,” 2,6,
from lands beyond the sea.

9. See p. 206. On DYNAN see ἢ, on chap. ii. 1. The article is
intentionally omitted both before Θ᾽" Π and ΠΕ (comp. Ps. xxxiv. 13),
for the writer is speaking generally. He recognises, however, the
fact distinctly, that in ordinary cases for man’s happiness a “help-
meet” is needed. The advice of Koheleth is similar to, and based

Ch. ix.9,10.] Cretecal and Grammatical Comm. 411

on, that in Prov. v. 18, το; xviii. 22. His condemnation of women
in chap. vii, 23, is in like manner founded on Prov. ii. 18. See
remarks on p. 202. Ginsburg is certainly wrong in maintaining that
not a wife, but “a favourite woman” is here recommended, and
consequently that the writer does not refer at all to the married state.
The majority of critics, including all the best, differ from him on this
point. Plumptre observes that “we should say naturally, ‘live with
a wife whom you love.’” The latter scholar must be regarded as
mistaken in the view, propounded in his Introduction, p. 73, that the
sayings of the writer of the Book of Wisdom (chap. iii. 14; iv. 1)
were levelled against the possible misunderstanding of this passage
of Koheleth. The relative in the clause 7>"}N) 1X” may either refer
to the wife mentioned in the previous sentence (as Michaelis,
Rosenmiiller, Hemem. and others explain it), in which case Gen.
1. 22 was probably in the author’s mind; or to ¢he days of thy life,
as the LXX., Vulg., Knobel, etc., which is more in accordance with
chap. v.17. The LXX., Syr., Targ., omit the second ban "° δ,
which, however, are expressed by the Vulg. and the Arab. The
reading of the text is most probably correct, though the repetition
of the phrase is regarded by some critics as heavy, but by others as
being emphatic, and by Tayler Lewis as ‘(a most exquisite pathos
in view of the transitoriness and poverty of life!” The Oriental
MSS, read, in the end of the verse, apn 87 '3, a like difference as
Delitzsch notes in his Zextkrit. Bemerk. asin Nah. ii. 12. It would
be quite possible here to interpret that reading as referring to the
wife previously spoken of. The analogy of chap. iil, 22; v. 17
(A.V. v. 12), and even chap. vii. z, however, is decisive against that
interpretation. Geiger (Urschrift, pp. 236 ff) considers this variety
of reading in passages not belonging to the Pentateuch as a proof
that the form 817 was formerly used for the feminine in other books
as well as the Pentateuch, in which books less care was taken to
preserve the original forms. He calls attention to the fact that
the Babylonian and Oriental MSS. have in many places 817 where
the Western MSS. read 8%.

to, See remarks on p, 231. JP NSON, Comp. Lev. xii. 8;
Judg. ix. 33; 1 Sam. x. 7; xxv. 8. According to the accentuation,
the 1933 belongs to that which precedes. Itis not exactly ana-bo3,
as in Gen. xxxl. 6, though it is not essentially different. The “all”

412 The Book of Koheteth, [Ch. ix. 10, 11.

has accidentally crept into our quotation of the passage on p. 231.
W33 is scarcely to be rendered with Ginsburg after Rashi, “ whzls¢
thou art able.” ‘Koheleth, so far from recommending an easy in-
difference, prescribes for man honest, earnest labour in his calling,
combined with such enjoyments as God’s providence spreads before
him. The punctuation NYT), instead of MYT}, is, as Delitzsch has
noted, because of the conjunctive accent.. The rule may thus be
stated: In the case of two words connected together by the copula,
if the second word be accented on the penult, and is marked with a
disjunctive, lis pointed}, Soin chap. i, 165 Isa. xxxiii. 6; Proy. xxii.
20, The two apparent exceptions referred to by Delitzsch are Ps:
lxv. 9 and Koh. il. 26. In the former, 2)Y} with a conjunctive is for
ay} (rebhia mugrash), comp. Baer, Accentuations-system, cap. xviii, 1
(in Delitzsch’s Comm. tiber die Psalmen, vol. ii. p. 503, Leipzig, 1860).
Therefore the 1 is correct. In the latter (Koh. ii. 26) U7) has indeed
a disjunctive (tiphcha), but a third word is connected with the two
preceding. Hence that, too, is no exception. See also note on
chap. 11, 23.

τι. The expression ΠΕΡῚ) ΠΕ corresponds to the simple ‘73!
προ δ, which occurs in chap. iv. 1. Comp. Ges.-Kautzsch, § 142, 3,
with ὃ 131, 4. Perhaps there is a slight difference between the
two constructions, the second expressing more definitely the notion
of two distinct actions. Compare the same construction in chap.
vil. g. The construction in chap. ix. 1 is scarcely ad rem, By the
use of this phrase the writer connects the observations that follow
with his own personal experiences previously commented on.
The last occurrence of "ΠΝ, which precedes that in the text, is
in chap. vii. 17. The use of Ἰ ἾΦ, the abstract masc. found here
only, instead of 134, the fem. noun used in older Hebrew, may
be an indication of a late date, vid. Bottcher, ZeArd., καὶ 628, 3 «
Neither word necessarily means “a@ race,” 2.4, ἃ formal game of that
kind. The latter is used in the more general signification even in
post-Biblical Hebrew. Hence Plumptre’s notion, that the author
might be referring to the Greek games introduced into Palestine in
the Grecian period, is quite out of place. <A far better parallel is
found in the race between Ahimaaz and Cushi, narrated in 2 Sam.
xvill. 27. The phrase at the end of the verse, 14) Y25) NY, is rendered
in the A.V., “time and chance happencth to them all.” But the ΠΡ
refers back to the ‘times and seasons” appointed by God (chap.

Ch.ix.t1,12.] Cretical and Grammatical Comm. 413

iii.) for every human purpose, in consequence of which the swift
do not always out-run the slow, nor heroes always win the battle,
nor human wisdom and knowledge always prove successful. 9.45
only occurs twice in Scripture, in this place and in 1 Kings v. 18
(A.V. v. 4), and does not convey the same idea as the English word
chance, but may be used of α stroke (YB, to strike), accident, or tnct-
dent, caused by a higher power. Both Ps. iii. and xci. are termed in
Shebuoth, 15 ὦ, DIB be WW, a song against accidents, or against the
attacks of evil spirits. Koheleth does not here mention God, be-
cause he makes use of the language of an ordinary observer, and not
distinctly that of a man of faith. The sentiments of a man of the
latter stamp are found in 1 Sam. xvil. 47; Ps. xx. 8 [A.V, ver. 7];
xxxlii. 16. The pathach under pond must here be regarded as
that of the article, as is proved by the fact that all the other nouns
with which the word is connected in the verse have the article.
Compare also chap. ix. 1; Exod. xxxvi. 4; Esther i. 13. Delitzsch
observes that, as the idea of mental superiority is here expressed
by three distinct terms, so in Isa. xi. z, among the gifts of the
spirit 723M, 12°2 and FY7 follow one another. The imperf. 1?? is
mase. agreeing with Y18; NY is occasionally masculine, as Cant.
u. 12; Ezek. xxx. 3. See Bottcher, Zehrd., § 648.

12. The particle ‘D is marked with a distinctive ον to note
that it is not to be connected with the following 53; comp. chap.
vil. 12. The ‘2 governs the whole sentence, file the D3, as
Delitzsch notes, is to be referred to the MINN. The latter ex-
pression has been explained by Knobel, etc., as the proper time for
working, by Ginsburg as the time of misfortune; but the context
shows that the rendering of Jerome, mescit homo finem suum, approved
by most critics, is correct, and that the writer refers to the day of
death. Death comes generally in an unexpected moment. Men look
for it as little as the fishes when they are caught in the net, or the
birds when taken in the trap. The sudden and unexpected approach
of death is elsewhere depicted by the writer under other figures, see
p. 274. In one of Rabbi Akiba’s remarkable sayings, preserved in
Aboth, iii. 25 (Taylor's edit., or Adboth, iii. τό, in that of Strack, see
note on p. 245), reference is made to this passage as follows:
“ Everything is given on pledge, and a net (TVS) is spread over
all living” (comp. Isa. xxv. 7); #¢. man has no permanent posses-

414 The Book of Koheleth. [Ch. ix. 12-14.

sion on earth, he is already enclosed in a net, and must give account
for the debts which he owes to heaven. Instead of the reading
nvnN with t dageshed, the word ought, with the best MSS. and
older editions, to be marked with raphe. O°S'2)’ is for D'WPYD, the
participial 2. being rejected, and the vowel of the first radical pro-
longed to compensate for the omission of daghesh, Bottcher, ὃ 296 8;
924, 10, 997, 2 4; Ewald, § τόρ 4; Konig, p. 408; Kalisch,
§ xliv. 1, 5; Ges.-Kautzsch, ὃ 52, rem, 6; Stade, § 220, Stade
suggests that it is possible in this case that the 9 of the preceding
O73 may have been intended to do duty also for the of the parti-
ciple following. See his Zehrd., § 23 ὦ, rem.

13. The example cited by Koheleth in this and the following
verses is given to show that however beneficial wisdom may be, it
doés not in all cases secure advantages for its possessor, On Πὶ see
note on chap. il. 2. Hitzig would read ΠῚ, and place a great dis-
tinctive there, “ also this have I seen: wisdom, etc.” So the Gr. Ven.
But there is no necessity to depart from the Hebrew accentuation.
The passage, indeed, ought not to be rendered with Ginsburg and
others, ‘‘even this wisdom have 7 seen,” for the order of the words
points to something different from the usual concord of the demon-
strative and substantive. Jerome has observed the peculiarity of
the order of the words in his rendering, Aane guogue sub sole vidi
sapientiam ; but, as Delitzsch remarks, the phrase here is equivalent
to, “also im this have 77 seen wisdom,” the demonstrative pronoun
(7D) being, as in chap. ν. 15 (comp. also chap. v. 18), put in the
same gender as the 723M, inasmuch as it is related to it as its pre-
dicate. So the LXX. καί ye τοῦτο εἶδον σοφίαν ὑπὸ τὸν ἥλιον. On
the construction ὃν mbina compare Esth. x. 3, where Mordecai is
called 0°917%2 5193 corresponding to ΔῈ S192 Exod. xi. 3, or
3 sy) bina 2 Kings v. τ. LXX. καὶ μεγάλη ἐστὶ πρὸς μέ, Symm.
better καὶ μεγάλη δοκεῖ μοι.

14. See p. 148. The historical fact present to the mind of Ko-
heleth, which formed the basis of the incident here adduced, was the
deliverance of Abel-Beth-Maacha through the wisdom of “a wise
woman” (2 Sam. xx. 15-22). Compare the historical allusions made
to events fresh in the memory of the Jewish people in our Lord’s
parable of the pounds, as recorded in Luke xix. 12 ff. (note especially
verses 14 and 27), which, slightly transformed, form part of the

Ch.ix.r4-15.] Cretecal and Grammatical Comm. 415

parable itself. The name of the “wise woman” who delivered the
city Abel from the horrors of war had been forgotten when the
2nd Book of Samuel was written. This instance of popular in-
gratitude to a benefactress seems to have formed the real basis of
Koheleth’s parable. He has substituted “a poor man” in place
of “a wise woman,” because the anecdote corresponds better thus
with the sentiment of verse 11, which it was intended to illustrate.
By the use of the expression, bia 2», “ great king,’ the writer
depicts the incident as having occurred in his own days. All
attempts have utterly failed to make out that the writer is literally
narrating some historical fact, which perhaps occurred at the siege of
Dora by Antiochus the Great, as Hitzig asserts without any evidence;
or to Themistocles’ treatment by the Athenians, as Ewald more
hesitatingly puts forward. It may, of course, possibly refer to some
event which is not recorded in history, but well known to the public
for whom Koheleth primarily wrote (Graefz). It is certainly wrong
to treat it as an allegory, with the Midrash, and after its example
many Christian interpreters, as Hengstenberg. There is not the
slightest difficulty in regarding it as a parable founded on fact, but
modified by the writer in order that the story might suit better the
special object which he had in view. See remarks on verse 18.

On the structure of the sentence, Delitzsch aptly compares Ps. civ.
25. He adduces the literal translation of the Vulg. ciu’tas parva et
pauct in ea viri, venit contra eam rex magnus, observing that the former
(ctvitas parva) is the subject and the latter (pauci in ea virt) the pre-
dicate, the object (the city) stands out rigid as.a statue, and then
follows the recital of that which happened to it. On the meaning
of δὰ 8t3, comp. Gen. xxxii. 9. In place of O°N¥9, two MSS. of
De Rossi read OS) walls, fortifications, which Déderlein and some
other critics prefer. But that reading is, as Delitzsch notes, a mere
error of transcription. For the plural of ΝΘ is N¥, feminine,
not masculine as here, The LXX. render here χάρακας, palisades,
Symm. ἀποτείχισμα, Vulg. munitiones per gyrum, 0°), more often
used in the sense of wefs, as in chap. vii. 26, means here imtrench-
ments, so called from being the places in which the army of the
besiegers lie in wait to seize (79%) the besieged as their prey. 7¥9
is used in the sense of stronghold in Isaiah xxix. 7. See also Ezek.
χίχ. 9.

416 The Book of Koheleth. (Ch. ix. 1§-17.

15. 881, The verb here is regarded by many expositors as
impersonal, “and one found,” i.g. “and there was found.” But this
is unnecessary. The natural subject of the verb is the ‘great
king” spoken of in the verse before, S¥ is used not of the king
having discovered the poor wise man after searching for him, but
in the sense of having come across him contrary to all expectation.
Comp. the use of the same verb in Deut. xxiv. 1; Ps. exvi. 3. 02M
is used as an adjective qualifying the person spoken of before,
1251 ts. Hence the pashta on the word preceding. Delitzsch
compares 2 Chron, ii. 13. We might express the force of the dis-
junctive by rendering, “a@ poor man, (but) wise.’ In place of
NIT"DED, the perfect with simple vay, the older language would
have written min, the impf. with νὰν conv. See ἢ. on chap. i. 13.

On the form 05) with pathach, vid. Ges.-Kautzsch, § 52, rem. 1;
Kalisch, ὃ xliv. 1; Konig, § 23, 2, p. 187. Delitzsch observes that
instead of ND DIN the older language would have preferred Nd thy,
but perhaps the writer wished here to avoid the repetition of the
t's; although he uses also Ἰδὲ ΟΝ instead of ἢ Ν᾽ UN, chap. vii. 20,
where no such reason can be assigned.

τό. The participles are made use of in this verse to express a
fact commonly true in human experience. Plumptre suitably com-
pares Juvenal, Saz, 1. 74, “proditas laudatur et alget.”. The Vulgate
introduces at the beginning of Wisdom vi. ‘1 a heading, which has
crept there into the text, partly borrowed from this passage and
partly from Prov. xvi. 32, ‘ seléor est sapientia quam vires, et vir pri
dens quam fortis.” See Grimm and Deane’s notes.

17. There is no discrepancy whatever between this verse and the
preceding. If the multitude will not listen to the voice of the wise,
there will always be found some persons among them who will listen
and learn wisdom. The comparative is expressed in this verse, as in
chap. iv. 17, by the simple 12. Some explain the clause to mean,
“qwords of the wise heard in quiet.” So Vulg. verba sapientium audi-
untur in stlentio. Others preferably explain the clause to mean,
“words of the wise, (uttered) in quiet, are heard.” The latter corre-
sponds more strictly to the contrasted clause, “ “4c shout of a ruler
among the fools,” as also to the Hebrew accentuation, which places a
disjunctive (tiphcha) on NNQ3. Βγ the latter. clause is clearly meant
(as, the parallel cases D782 Ded 2 Sam. xxiii, 3, and Tpn2a Wal,

Ch. ix. 17—x.1.] Cretical and Grammatical Comm. 417

Proy. xxx. 30, abundantly prove), that the ruler spoken of is him-
self a fool of the first class. Compare in illustration of the verse,
the contrast presented in Isa. xlii. 2; Matt. xii. 19, and on the gucet
of our text, Isa, xxx. 15.

18. The moral drawn in this verse is evidently the conclusion
which Koheleth desired his parable to impress upon the mind of his
hearers. Hence it is evident that “the poor wise man” was not
supposed to have displayed his wisdom by inventing weapons of war,
like Archimedes. The weapons of war were all on the other side,
and they were turned back by the wise man’s wisdom. There was
“one sinner” who sought to destroy “much good,” and who exer-
cised a powerful influence for evil, which was only overcome by the
wisdom of his antagonist. All these incidents are strikingly illustrated
in the story of Abel-Beth-Maacha, on the occasion of the wicked
and causeless rebellion of Sheba the son of Bichri (2 Sam. xx.), who
sought to break up again the union re-established between the tribes,
which had been severed by the rebellion of Absalom, Hence we
adhere to the view already stated, that Koheleth’s illustration is a
parable founded on that fact. QIN is here pointed after the analogy
of 19 verbs, and this form is, according to the Masora, the correct
form throughout this book (with the exception of chap. vii. 26);
even in chap. ii, 26, where the ordinary text has sind) with zere.
See Excursus No. 4, § 1.

CHAPTER Χ.

1. The aphorism with which this chapter commences has reference
to that with which the last closes. Just as “one sinner destroys
much good,” a little folly may utterly mar the influence of a wise man,
ny ᾿ΔῚΔ) may mean either dead flies or poisonous flies. The former
is the rendering of the Vulg., Syr., Arab., Symm., Rosenmiiller,
Ginsburg, and others, and has been adopted by our A.V. The
latter rendering is that of the LXX., the Targ., Gesenius, Knobel,
Delitzsch, etc. The latter is to be preferred, being more in accord-
ance with the other compound expressions into which 19 enters, as
ny bp, deadly weapons, Ps. vii. 14; TY San, the snares of death,
Ps, xviii. 5. In favour of the former it has been maintained that
dead flies, whether poisonous or not, would have an equally delete-

EE

418 The Book of Koheleth. ([Chisert

rious effect upon a pot of ointment. In the East, flies of all sorts
corrupt and destroy the ointment or food they settle on, even
if they do not themselves become entangled therein, and perish.
The writer might, therefore, term such in disgust “ porsonous flies,”
whether they were of a really poisonous character or not. Had
he, however, meant merely dead flies, he would have chosen the
more simple expression Θ᾿ ΠΡ O31. As to the singular verb wd),
Delitzsch observes that in cases in which the idea of the plurality of
the individuals is subordinate to that of unity of kind the singular
is often made use of; as in Gen. xlix. 22; Joel i. 20; Isa. lix. 12.
See Ges.-Kautzsch, § 146, 4; Ewald, 8 319 4. There is, therefore,
no occasion to read with Hitzig ‘393}, the singular with the archaic
termination ὅτ, which does not harmonise with the time in which the
writer lived, or even, with Luzzatto whom Graetz follows, Ni} Ata}.
Ewald, however, considers the singular reading more correct, and
expresses it in his translation, as does Renan. ‘The translation given
by Ginsburg of ‘BLENDS, “maketh sieet ointment stinkingly to
ferment” is strange English; although it is quite true that the first
verb may be regarded as used adverbially to: qualify the second. Vid.
Ges.-Kautzsch, § 142, 3 8; Kalisch, § 103, 1,2. The LXX., Targ,,
Symm., Syr. and Vulg. do not express the Y'3', but the omission is
caused simply by the difficulty of translating such an expression.
Ginsburg’s “sweet ointment” is similarly a free rendering of the “oil
of the perfumer.” ΠῚ properly means, 40 pound, to crush, specially
spices ; hence 2) is a preparer of sweet smelling oil, as is evident
from the context here and in Exod. xx. 33. We have rendered it
by perfumer. The verbal asyndeton ¥°3’ "83° in the first clause
corresponds with the nominal asyndeton 1935 13 in the second.
Some MSS, and editions insert in the second clause the copula
between the nouns; but the true Masoretic reading omits it, as
Delitzsch points out in his Zexthritik. Bemerk. The Vulg., Syr., and
Targ. express the avd, but, after the liberties of translation taken by
them in the former clause, they cannot be safely adduced as evidence
in this case of such a reading. The adjective 1 is taken in its
original meaning of heavy, weighty, and, inasmuch as it precedes the
subject, is in the masculine, instead of agreeing in gender with its
subject mab20 at the end of the sentence. The thought of the passage
is akin to that in 1 Cor. v. 6, with this exception, that while Koheleth
speaks of an individual, the Apostle speaks of a community of

Ch. x.1-3.] Critical and Grammatical Comm. 419

persons. The idea is that a little folly cast into the scale on the
other side overweighs a great deal of wisdom. ‘The ancient trans-
lators curiously misunderstood the clause as stating that in some way
or other folly was better than wisdom.

2. This verse does not mean, as often expounded, that the heart
of the wise is in its right place, while that of the fool is in the wrong
side ; nor is it to be explained with Rosenmiiller, Ginsburg, Bullock,
etc., as meaning that the mind of the wise man is at his right hand,
ready to help and protect him, while that of the fool is out of its proper
place. Nor can we discover in this passage, as Plumptre imagines,
“ another trace of the Greek influence which pervades the book,” as
if the writer referred to right and left respectively as the lucky or un-
lucky quarter. ‘The preposition made use of (2) indicates direction,
and the meaning of the saying is, as Knobel, Delitzsch, and others
explain it, the heart of the wise leads him always to the right or the
proper side, while the heart of the fool leads him to the left, Ze. in
the wrong direction. Delitzsch mentions in a note that the verse is
jocosely applied among the Jews to the study of a book (of course
written in the Hebrew language, and consequently read from right to
left, and not from left to right): “ Zhe heart of the wise man ts towards
the right” of the book, that is, he turns the leaves over backwards,
and reads over again what he has already read ; “ the heart of the fool
ts towards the left,” or the end of the book. The fool turns the
leaves forwards, endeavouring superficially to anticipate that which
he has not read, having scarcely patience to wait for the end of the
work.

3. The K’ri considers the occurrence of the of the article after δ
to be incorrect, and directs it to be omitted as redundant. It is not,
however, clear but that the 7 was purposely inserted by the writer to
avoid the cacophony of the two sibilants coming together. But see
on chap. vi. 10. The writer in this verse speaks more fully of the
progress of the fool in the wrong direction whither his foolish heart
inclines him to go. In order to emphasise the path of error, the clause
is inverted, and 7174 is placed before Sopyia, The writer, as Hitzig
justly remarks, does not describe the fool on a journey, but the fool
in the common path of life. If he were only to keep at home, his
folly would remain undetected, but he must needs go out of doors,
and then he is sure in some way or other to: proclaim himself a fool.
Comp. Prov. xvii. 28. 2710 deficient in heart, or understanding, is

420 The Book of Koheleth. [Ch. x. 3, 4:

a phrase which occurs eleven times, and always in the Book of Pro-
verbs, where it is applied to a fool, as Prov. vi. 32; vii. 7, etc.; and so
Herzfeld and Ginsburg explain this passage in Koheleth. But the
order of the words and the suffix is, according to Delitzsch, against
this view, and hence we must render, not “ Ae lacks his heart,” but
“Mis heart (his understanding) fails him.” On the various significa-
tions in which the word heart (22) occurs in Scripture, see De-
litesch’s Brblical Psychology, chap. iv. ὃ 12, on the “heart and head.”
The clause 817 93D 959 WN) signifies “ and he says to every one that
he himself is a fool” (se esse stultum). The expression is, as Delitzsch
notes, similar to that in Ps, ix. 21, “chat the heathen may know,
Mam vi, that they are (mere) men.” But the Vulg. renders omnes
stultos @sitmat, and Symm., as known here from Jerome’s transl.,
suspicatur de omnibus guia stulti sunt, Koster, Knobel and Ewald
render &17 bp by ‘it ἐξ foolish,” to which Hitzig rightly objects that
δ is not used of actions or things.

4. This verse commences a new section. 11 is used here in the
sense of azger, as in Judg, vill. 8; Isa. xxv. 4; Prov. xxix. 11; Zech.
vi. 8. See my Bampton Lectures on Zechariah, p. 139. V\PD, thy
place, post, or position. The use of Dipd in this signification is
peculiar, but the translation is justified by the analogy of 232 and
ἼΗΙ, both used in a similar sense in Isa, xxii. 19. Compare the
use of DIP!) in the closely related passage in verse 23 of that chap-
ter. So Herzfeld, Delitzsch, etc. But Knobel, Hitzig and others
render, ‘‘do not lose thy self-possession,” there are, however, no analo-
gies to justify that translation. Others suppose the author refers to
actual locality. Comp. 1 Sam. xix. 10; xx. 25, 27. SB, which
appears also in the form 3, Jer. viii. 15,.1s generally used in the
sense of healing, and this is the sense in which the word is taken
by the LXX., Vulg., Syr. and Targ. Such a meaning, although
defended by Dale, is not suitable here. Symmachus renders here ὅτι
σωφροσύνη παύσει ἁμαρτήματα πολλά. The word is used in Prov. xiv.
303; xv. 4, in the sense of mz/dness, calmness. So Herzfeld, Zockler,
Delitzsch. Zockler is unintentionally misrepresented in the English
edition of his comm. as if he gave the rendering yve/ding, which is in
the A.V. Graetz, connecting 857 with} 129, renders it by dzziness,
making the passage to mean that the indolence which abandons
a post too readily gives rise to suspicion on the part of the king

Chix. 4-6.) Cretical and Grammatical Comm. 421

that great offences have been really commiitted by the individual
who acts in such a manner. Renan seems also to adopt this view.
Herzfeld is correct in considering that the “great sins” or
“offences” spoken of in the passage are not those of the monarch,
for an Oriental would not thus express himself, but rather the “sins”
or “‘blunders” of the subject who has fallen, justly or unjustly,
under royal displeasure. In some aspects the advice is similar to
that in Prov. xv. 1. Comp. the language of James v. 20.

5. After being led to allude to the mistakes which draw forth
anger on the part of the ruler, and can often be pacified by calm-
ness on the side of the subject—for the proper demeanour of a sub-
ject frequently leads a monarch to pass over éven serious offences
—Koheleth now proceeds to notice blunders on the other side. He
approaches this subject with evident caution. The simplest render-
ing of the passage before us appears the best, “ ¢here ἐς an evil that
I have seen under the sun, like an oversight which proceeds from the
ruler.” This verse of Koheleth is referred to in Kethuboth, 23 a,
on which passage compare the very important remarks of Biesenthal
on quotations from the Scriptures in the Talmud, in his Zrostschre?-
ben des Apostels Paulus an die Hebrier, p. 57. The prep. in ΠΡ
is not to be rendered with Knobel, and others, ‘2 consequence of.”
The writer only touches lightly on the point. He does not affirm
in the previous verse that the anger of a king is always to be justified,
though he drops a suggestion as to how the royal anger may be
pacified, even in cases where the subject is to be blamed. So here
he does not assert that the mistakes noticed are really due to the
monarch, but merely says that there are cases in which they appear
to come from that quarter. Ginsburg’s rendering of 7342’ by ous
rage is far too strong. δὲδ᾽ for My’, part. fem. of Ν᾽ after the
analogy of verbs n>, vid. Ges., Lehrgeb., p. 418; Ges.-Kautzsch,
§ 75, rem. 21 ἐς; Ewald, § 189 f; Kalisch, § Ixvi. 1 ὦ. rden,
See Glossary. This does not refer to God, as several Jewish com-
mentators and Hengstenberg suppose, but to an earthly monarch.

6. baa is here abstract from concrete, personified and impersonated
folly. The LXX., Aq., Symm., Syr., Vulg., Targ. either read bopn,
the fool, or have given that translation as expressing the real sense
of the passage. Graetz maintains that there is no contrast between

the 52D and oven, and, therefore, proposes te amend the text by

#29 The Book of Koheleth. [Ch. x. 6-8.

rendering San, the man of low degree, which arbitrary alteration has
been endorsed by Renan, 31 DNA, «Not “ #7 many heights,”
but “in great heights,” the 0°27 stands as it were in a sort of ap-
position, and hence has not the article, vid: Kalisch, § IRKXIL. 15.0%
Ges.-Kautzsch, § 111, 2 6, DYPWY, rich, is used in the sense of
nobles, Comp. the similar use of YW in Isa. xxxii. 5.

7. Riding on horses was a mark of the nobility, Jer. xvil. 25;
2 Chron. xxv. 28; Esth. vi. 8, 9. Compare on the thought here,
Prov. xix. 10. Justin says of the Parthians, ‘‘equis omni tempore
vectantur. . . . Hoc denique discrimen inter servos liberosque
est, quod servi pedibus, liberi non nisi equis incedunt” (Lib. xli, 3).
Graetz sees in this verse a vivid picture of the days of Herod the
Great.

8. It is impossible within our limits to attempt to give a sketch of
the opinions of scholars of various times on. the connexion between
these verses and the foregoing. ‘The verses, on the consideration of
which we are now entering, seem specially to recommend prudence
by pointing out the dangers which beset even the most necessary
actions. On }9%3, which only occurs here, see Glossary. bye might
here indicate the future, and express a necessary consequence, as in
Prov. xxvi. 27, in which case the first clause of the aphorism would
be identical in sense with the maxim there set forth ; but it may also
be taken, with Delitzsch, as intimating a result that is merely possible,
which is more in accordance with the aphorisms to be found in the
immediate context. The second clause tends to show that Koheleth
does not refer to the case of one who plots the ruin of another but
falls himself into the pit he has made. For the wall mentioned in
the second clause is not a neighbour’s landmark, or a fence through
which one breaks to steal his neighbour’s fruit, but some old wall or
fence which requires for some cause to be renewed, in the crannies
and nooks of which, however, serpents have been wont to make their
nests, so that the man who breaks it down incurs the danger of
being bitten, and ought, therefore, to go cautiously about the work.
It is quite beyond the object of the writer to allude under these
similitudes to the dangers encountered in‘ all attempts to subvert
the structure of a despotic government, which Ginsburg considers to
be the drift of the passage. The moral intended to be enforced is
rather, be cautious and circumspect, and make due provision in

Ch. a. 8-10] Critical and Grammatical Com. 423

all cases in order to guard against dangers which may naturally be
anticipated.

9. These aphorisms are to the same effect. OYA PDD is one
who removes stones, after the analogy of 2 Kings iv. 4; or one who
breaks or cuts stones, after that of τ Kings v. 31. The latter is most
likely the real meaning. O72 I¥¥1, may be hurt by them, alludes
probably to the accidents which happen to stonecutters. Hence we
are inclined to regard O°SY Ypi3 as signifying the woodman or forester,
he who splits or cuts down trees. O°SY might mean pieces of wood
used for firewood, Lev. i. 7; iv. 12, but it can also mean ézees, as in
chap. ii. 6. It seems more probable that the writer has in view the
dangers of accidents happening to the woodcutter such as mentioned
in Deut. xix. 5, rather than the lesser dangers experienced in chopping
firewood. 12D’, shall be endangered. See Glossary, The LXX.
rightly, κινδυνεύσει ἐν αὐτοῖς. Less correctly the Vulg. vulnerabitur.

το. This, linguistically speaking, is confessedly the most difficult
passage in the Book of Koheleth. 72 is an intransitive piel, and
means /o de blunt, as is evident from the use of the cognate verbs in
Chald. and Syr. It occurs in kal in reference to the teeth, in Jer.
xxxi. 29, 30; Ezek. xviii. 2, in the three places in the same form,
and is rendered by our A.V. by “‘se¢ on an edge.” The former transl.
is, however, more correct, though, according to our manner of
speaking, less appropriate. 098, which properly means the face,
countenance, has been explained as evidently used here in the
signification of edge. This idea is elsewhere expressed by 7, che
mouth, then edge, in the oft-used expression, 12 * the mouth (or
edge) of the sword.” The plural ΘΒ is likewise used in the sense of
edge, 1 Sam. xiii. 21, as is also a second plural form, ΓΒ, Prov. v. 4.
Compare ΓΙ ΒΒ, Isa. xli. 15. In spite of Graetz’s objection, 029 ND,
without an edge, would be a phrase, as Hitzig observes, formed exactly
on the model of 0°32 x, without children, τ Chron. ii. 30, 32; Ewald,
§ 286g. Ewald, in the latest edition of his Dichter d. alt. B., has
adopted the translation “ wthout a point,” in place of his former
idea, followed by Ginsburg and others, that 0°28 is for D'B2, and
means deforehand. The latter translation is from the Vulg. ef retusum
fuerit ferrum, et hoc non ut prius; but, as Delitzsch maintains, such a
rendering is impossible and leads to nothing, inasmuch as D385
means formerly, but not before that, like ΠῚ} ΡΩΝ Neh. xiii. 4. See

424 The Book of Koheleth. [Ch. x. 10.

Ewald, § 220 a. Delitzsch considers that 0°22 is used in a wider
signification than merely the edge, and that it is rather employed here
in the sense of the face of the iron. Viewing 77/2 as a piel in an in-
choative sense (see Ewald, § 120 4), and the 8171 as referring to the
labourer rather than to the iron, he connects the x) with SpeP (which
is fully justified by 2 Sam. iii. 34; Num. xvi..29), and brings out the
meaning of the first clause, “if the iron has become blunt, and he has
not whetted the face thereof, ete.” ἀρ, which also occurs in Ezek.
xxi, 26, is the pilpel of bp, with pattach instead of tzere on account
of the P, vid. Bottcher, ZeA7d., § 1021 8. The kal means 20 Le light,
the pilpel zo sharpen, moving lightly and swiftly up and down (vid.
Miihlau and Volck’s edit. of Ges. Zex.), hence the LXX. ἐτάραξε,
and Syr. uN;, which renderings, however, afford no sense, though
they are evidence in favour of the correctness of the Masoretic text.
Graetz tries conjecturally to amend the text in the first clause, and
brings out, “ when he has made the iron blunt, then he pitches it into
the face, and increases wounds,” while he abandons the second clause
as hopeless. We must not render 722! ov with Ginsburg by “#e
shall only increase the army,” following the LXX. καὶ δυνάμεις δυνα-
μώσει, if that obscure rendering does not look quite another way.
Such a translation requires the interpolation of a considerable exposi-
tion in order to render it intelligible. Delitzsch, after Abulwalid and
Kimchi, preferably interprets the phrase of the putting to of more
strength, the increasing of effort. 724 means 20 strengthen, Zech.
x. 6, 12, and the rendering of oven, plural of oon, by strength, is
supported by Don 133, mighty heroes, 1 Chron. vil. 5, 7, 11, 40.
Hence this second clause may well mean “then ()) he must put forth
efforts of strength.”

The word Y'¥27 in the concluding sentence of the verse is the
infinitive absolute hiphil of '2, It stands here in the genitive
governed by 1, with which it is connected by the accentuation,
and is treated as a hiphil noun. The absolute is used instead of
the construct ; for in the latter case 23" would be governed by
it as an object, whereas it is the predicate of the sentence. Hence
the disjunctive accent upon 1’27, ~~ Hitzig would alter the punctu-
ation and read ὙΦ 3Π, the inf. const. governing 937 in the accusative.
He regards the predicate of the sentence to be M930 W320, So
also Elster and Zockler. The clause would then be rendered, “ ἡ 7s

Chix.1o,1n.] Credecal and Grammatical Comin. 425.

a profit wisely to handle wisdom.” Delitzsch considers such a com-
bination as absolutely impossible. ΡΞ Π, see Glossary, s.v., means
“to set in the right position,” “to pre-arrange;” and the sentence,
according to Delitzsch, means, the advantage of pre-arranging rightly,
or of putting to rights, 7s wisdom, that is, wisdom brings with it this
advantage, that it teaches a man to arrange everything rightly before-
hand, and a wise man acts accordingly in this way. It would be
possible to explain 1H (like the hiphil mon and Dab) causa-
tively, makes to succeed. So Knobel, the advantage of success (or of
obtaining prosperity) is wisdom, 1.6. wisdom is that which secures this
gain. But, as Delitzsch argues, the meaning of making fit or equip-
ping, which is common in post-Biblical Hebrew, is more suitable to
the example from which the writer deduces this corollary.

1t. The translation of our A.V., “surely the serpent will bite
without enchantment, and a babbler ts no better,” incorrectly renders
the DX, That particle is conditional, “if the serpent will bite without
enchantment. pwhn bya in itself might well be a designation of a
babbler, as Munster and others of the older expositors explained it.
But this does not harmonise with the former clause, nor with the con-
text in which the aphorism occurs. The interpretation of the LXX.
and the Syr. is, therefore, to be preferred, who regard the snake-
charmer as here termed the γα of the tongue (LXX., ἐπάδων, Syr.
φρο). This designation of the snake-charmer, which is only one
of many, is not given, as Delitzsch observes, without a reason, for
the tongue is an instrument, like the iron of ver. το. ‘There is no
occasion whatever to suppose that the LXX. and Syr. read ving Sua 5
they simply interpreted the Hebrew expression. The phrase in our
text has been interpreted by the Vulg. of the secret calumniator or
slanderer, ‘“‘s¢ mordeat serpens in silentio, nihil eo minus habet qui
occulte detrahit, The Targ. renders similarly @ slanderer (028 733
P¥PP). Delitzsch refers in illustration of this rendering to the fable
in Zaanith, 8 a, “In the future all the animals will gather together,
and go to the serpent and say, ‘The lion treads down (his prey) on
the ground and devours it, the wolf tears it and devours it, but what
advantage hast thou for thy poison?’ And the serpent shall say to
them, [quoting the words of this text] ‘the slanderer also has no
profit.’” The fable is given at fuller length from the Zanchuma in
Dukes’ Rabbin. Blumentlese, p. 201. By the serpent biting vind ΠΣ

426 The Book of Koheleth. (Ch. x. 11-14.

is meant its biting before the charmer has time to make use of his
skill in charming (compare 191 Noa, Job. xv. 32, before his time has
come). For there are serpents which will not hearken to the voice
or tongue of the charmer (Ps. lviii. 5.). Hence, when the passage is
examined more closely, one sees that the passage in Sirach (xii. το)
alluded to on p. 41, though at first it appears to have no connexion
with this passage in Koheleth, is really based on it, namely, τίς ἐλεήσει
ἐπαοιδὸν ὀφιόδηκτον Kal πάντας τοὺς προσάγοντας θηρίοις ; the point of
the aphorism of Koheleth is, no skill or wisdom is of any avail if
made use of too late, ‘It is too late to lock the stable-door when
the steed is stolen.”

12. The lips of a wise man bring favour to him, as well as preserve
him (Prov. xiv. 3), but the lips of a fool swallow him up, #2. lead to
his ruin. 4, abstract used for emphasis, comp. chap. ii. 22. MINS’,
This plural construct form (the absol. MINDY does not occur) is con-
sidered by Knobel and Béttcher (Zehrd., ὃ 684, 8) to be later Hebrew
in place of the older dual construct ‘Mt’, but the statement is based
on arbitrary assumption. On MnsY from ΠΡ’, compare NY, Ninv’?,
and nix, Nin, in which words also the plural Τὴ is attached to the
fem. ending. On the sing. verb. wydan, comp. chap. iv. 18. The
suffix. refers to the fool, and not to 1M; as Schmidt and Umbreit
explain it.

13. The fool begins with talking folly, and ends with mischievous
madness. His words injure himself and others. Compare Prov.
xv, 2; x. 8, 21; xvill, 7. The expression used in the next verse
suggests the idea that the writer may be referring to that vain
discussion about matters too high for man’s understanding which
was a striking characteristic of his day. See p. 189, and n. on chap.
vi. 11, p. 379.

14. The and at the beginning of the verse has almost the force
of moreover. The word used for the fool (5250) has reference to his

confusion of thought. He is termed before ?°D30 in reference to
his s¢upidity and dulness of comprehension. His words were de-
clared in the previous verse to have their beginning in mp, hence
he is himself characterised as a 53D, Tayler Lewis, after Rashi, con-
siders the “ words " of which the fool is full, to refer to those boasting
assertions with regard to the future which are condemned by St.
James in ch, iv. 23, and to which our Lord alludes in Luke xii. 20.

Cha.tg15.7 Critical and Grammatical Comm. 427

These are certainly comprised under the general expression, which
includes far more than merely “endless loquacity.” The language
used by St. James is probably founded on the expression in the
verse following. One would have expected δὲ before the YIOND,
but the clause, as Delitzsch notices, signifies here the state or con-
dition, and is directly subordinated to the principal clause after the
analogy of Ps. v.10, In the expressions that follow, Ws) ΠΡ ΠΤ
AND 7°, there is a kind of tautology, which is best explained, after
Delitzsch, by considering the *7*¥"F12 to be more distinctly defined
by the words following. That clause proves that the writer is refer-
ring to what may occur after the individual’s death. Comp. chap.
vi. 12°; vii. 14. Hitzig explains the word as meaning, “ man does not
know what will happen,’ what consequences his words may have
in the immediate future, ‘and what may happen after that,” 1.6. the
more remote consequences, that is, he knows not whether his ex-
pressions may damage him now or hereafter. But the sense in which
the writer elsewhere employs 8 is against this view. Ginsburg
explains Π ΠΣ ΠΣ to refer to the future in this life, and the second
clause to the future after death. In this point he is supported by
the Targ. and Ibn Ezra, The ancient versions either have sought
to paraphrase the passage loosely, and thus remove the tautology ;
or have read the perfect (7) instead of the imperfect of the
Masoretic text (7°) ; the LXX. translating τί τὸ γενόμενον καὶ τί
τὸ ἐσόμενον, Vulg., guid ante se fuerit, et quid post se futurum sit.
Similarly the Syr., Symm. and Arab, The Targ. alone keeps to the
Heb. text, although it is unlikely that the other translators had any
other reading actually before them.
15, avai pipe Spy. Though Soy is masculine, it is here
construed with a feminine verb. The idea of Kimchi, that is
thought of in the sense of Spy ΤΩΝ, is rightly viewed by Delitzsch

to be impossible. Bottcher considers that POY is regarded (Lehré.,
§ 657, 4), as a noun of unity, which is scarcely possible here ;
or (Neue Achrenlese, No. 1659), that it expresses the collective
sense, “all kinds of toil, even the slightest.” Hitzig maintains that
the writer treated the word as fem. to avoid the cacophony of the
double yod, which, in other cases when νὰν conversive precedes, is
often avoided by dropping one of the yods. Comp. Neh.i.4; Lam. iii.
33, and the K’ri in 2 Chron. xxxii. 30. But forms*with double yod,

428 The Book of Koheleth. [Ch. x. 15.

as Delitzsch remarks, are used elsewhere without hesitation, as on
(Mic. v. 6), 127% (Josh. vi. 26). A similar instance, perhaps, is 1919
which is treated as a fem. in Prov. iv. 13; possibly, according to
Bottcher, because the writer there thoroughly identified the 1919, or
instruction treate:l of, with zwsdom or 1230, (Meue Achrenlese, No.
1279). Delitzsch refers to the fact that the similarly formed noun
N23 is also of two genders, If od:pan Syy be understood to mean
“the toil of the fools,” the singular suffix after 292} Π must be re-
garded as a case in which the plural passes over into the distributive
or individualising singular. Delitzsch compares Isa. ii. 8; Hos. iv. 8.
On the other hand, the clause may be explained, with Herzfeld and
others, as “‘ foo/s’-work,” or toil such as fools have, and the singular
noun may be used in reference to the fool (0327) mentioned in verse
14. Or, it may be explained “fools’-work (vain philosophizing, see
Nn. on verses 13, 14) wearics the man who does not know how to find
the way to the city.” For pron bay would then express a single
idea, and therefore be feminine, and there would be no synallage ot
number.

Many interpretations have been proposed for the last clause. It is
unnecessary to do more than to allude to the attempts to explain the
word ἽΝ from the Arabic, as signifying ὦ crowd or a caravan, VY is
the city, and not to know the way to the city is not to know the
very simplest matter. The fool is smitten with a judicial blindness,
like that poured on the Syrians at Dothan, 2 Kings vi. 18-20.
Many perplex themselves with difficult matters, who have no com-
prehension of even the simplest things. ‘‘Isaiah’s description of the
road to the restored Jerusalem as being such that " wayfaring men,
though fools, shall not err therein’ (Isaiah xxxv. 8) supplies,” writes
Plumptre, ‘an interesting parallel.” Ewald thinks that the writer
is complaining of bad government, “a government in which the
toil of fools, #2 the wretched heathen ruler, wearies the poor
countryman who does not know how to go to the city.” He regards
the saying as a proverbial expression, signifying that the peasant
does not understand how to bribe the great lords in the city (chap.
vii, 19), where men rule who are unworthy, riotous, indolent, and
sell everything for gold. This is, however, certainly not the meaning
of the writer; nor is it necessary to interpret the passage with Hitzig,
Elster and Zéckler, of going to the city as the seat of the rulers and
officers from whence oppression indeed proceeds, but where redress

Ch. x. 15-17.) Cretical and Grammatical Commne. 429

also may be obtained. Graetz’s idea that the writer refers to the
peculiarities of the Essenes, who were wont to avoid cities, “living
by themselves ” (Joseph., 4v/ig., xviit. 1, 5), is not too farfetched to
prevent its being endorsed by Renan. νος is for yay, and
sounds, as Delitzsch remarks, vulgar; πόλις is used in Greek as de-
finite in itself and Athens is generally termed ἄστυ without the article.
The very name of Stambil (Constantinople), however, adds that
scholar, signifying as it does eis τὴν πόλιν, may serve as an illustration
of the proverbial saying, “‘ zot to know how to go ὌΝΟΝ,»

16. See remarks on pp. 218, 219. On, see Glossary. ‘ Instead
of W2 ϑορῷ the older language would have rather said mzdy Wd TWN”
(Delitssch). Note the relative used in the genitive in reference to
the second person both here and in the following verse. See Ges.,
Lehrg., p. 745. Ges.-Kautzsch, § 123, 1, rem. 1; Kalisch, ὃ 80, 1;
Kénig, p. 136. The analogy of Prov. xxx. 22, would have per-
mitted the use of 72¥ here in place of W2; but, as Delitzsch notes,
not by any means in the sense in which Graetz expounds it,
namely, as a reference to Herod as “the slave of the house of the
Hasmoneans.” For, though Ziba who was a servant was also called
W2 (2 Sam. xix. 18, A. V. 17), the noun 2 does not mean a slave

as such, but is identical with the Sbiy of Isaiah ili. 12. Renan has
in his translation here also followed Graetz. By the eating (O38

2.9. ond Sou, Ps. xiv. 4) is evidently meant banqueting such as is
alluded to by Isaiah (chap. v. 14).

17. See remarks on p. 220. ¥'8 is only found in the construct
plural; the plural being used contrary to general rule not only
before the heavy but also before the light suffixes. Thus we find
alike JY and D228. The form W'S which here occurs might
possibly be regarded as an incorrect mode of writing ὙΠ, in which
case it might be viewed as an example of the occurrence of the

singular. If viewed as plural it must stand for J’8. One instance
of the singular may be 1728, Prov. xix. 18, unless that be regarded
as defective for ΠΡ, The form WN occurs in Prov. xiv. 21;
xvi. 20. Bottcher (ZeArb., § 699), regards it as a plural of exten-
sion (in thought) ; Delitzsch explains the employment of the plural
as having arisen from the use of the word as a kind of exclamation.
It properly means /e/ness of happiness; when used as an exclamation
it signifies, O λὲς happiness / like Aram, ‘210, "34D, NAD, MN

430 The Book of Noheleth. [Ch. x. 17-19.

might be used metaphorically, see Ges. Zex., s. v. 12. We prefer to
take it literally. M2, at the right time, elsewhere expressed by
\mva (chap. iii. rr), here equivalent to the Gr. ἐν καιρῷ, lit. i fem.
pore, perhaps caused by the contrast with 1923 —Delitssch, ANIA
wa xd) is not to be rendered “for strength and not for feasting” —as
3 does not denote the object (see note on chap. ii. 24)—but rather
with Delitzsch, ἦτ manly strength, i.e. as the strength of a man requires
(comp. the plural 1191233, Ps, lxxi. τό, to indicate fulness of strength,
or fulness of measure, as in Ps. xc, ro), and not only ΠΟ, in such a
manner that the feast has drinking for its main object. So Kleinert,
“as men and not as drunkards.” ne'2, From nt’, which is akin
to MY, zo set, to place, comes ‘MW, the warp, used frequently in Lev.
xiii. ; from ANY Zo drink, comes το drinking, carouse, only found
in this place, though the fem. ΠΡ’ occurs in Esth. i. 8. The LXX.
have here καὶ οὐκ αἰσχυνθήσονται, the translators either confounding
ΟΞ with n’2, or having in mind the known consequences of
drunkenness. The Targ. renders niwona, in weakness, neglect, and
similarly the Midrash 3t"¢’n3,

18. Note remarks on p. 221. DYNDYY, The dual is most pro-
bably zu/cxsive, so that the word means great indolence, and does not
refer (as Ewald and others explain it) to the ‘wo idle hands. See
Bottcher, Zeird., § 687, and specially his Mewe Aehrenlese, No, 1660,
in which he criticises the view advocated by Ewald and Hitzig.
See also Kalisch, ὃ 85, 4. 12°. On the difference between 75 and
1), the former being used in a literal signification, the latter in a

metaphorical, see Bottcher, ὃ 1147. 792129, with the daghesh in the
,is the noun, ¢te deam-work. WHence the remark of the Masora
here Ὁ ΠΟ; on the contrary }RiP0 in Ps, civ. 3 (Masora, 759 N’?)
is the participle. See Delitzsch, Zexthrit. Bemerk.

1g. See p, 221. DY, indet, third pers, pl. like DVN Exod. v. τό,
referring, no doubt indirectly (not directly) to the persons spoken of
in the preceding verses. pnw, The > denotes the object, for
laughter, for the purpose of merriment, Jt can scarcely be regarded
as an adverbial clause, as Hitzig views it, after Lam. iv. 5; nor is
the clause to be rendered, with Ginsburg, “¢dey tuen bread and wine,
which cheereth life, into revelry.” ond ney is to make a feast, or prepare
a meal, as Ezek, iv. 15 and in Chald, 49 ond ΔΝ, Dan. v. r. Comp.
pnb box, Gen. xxx, 54; Exod. xviii. 12, and ἐσθίειν ἄρτον, Matt.

Ch. α. 19,201] Critical and Grammatical Comni. 431

xv. 2, also Th¥in NEY, Gen. xxi. 8. The clause ‘Mt ] is not to be
regarded as a relative, but as a co-ordinate:clause. So rightly the
Hebrew accentuation. 322° might be regarded either as the imperf.
kal, or as the imperf. hiphil. Hitzig prefers the latter, explaining it,
money “ makes all hear” him that hath it, Ze. “ provides everything”

for him. It is, however, better to take it with Delitzsch as the kal,

and ὈΞΠΊΤΙΣ as the accus. of that sought for, “ money grants all,”
answers every wish. Vulg. pecunia obediunt omnia. Symm. ἀργύριον
δὲ εὐχρηστήσει εἰς ἅπαντα. The LXX. give a wide paraphrase of the
verse, εἰς γέλωτα ποιοῦσιν ἄρτον, καὶ οἶνον καὶ ἔλαιον τοῦ εὐφρανθῆναι
ζῶντας, καὶ τοῦ ἀργυρίου ταπεινώσει ἐπακούσεται τὰ πάντα. The Syr.
has also, “‘ bread and wine and oil are made for gladness, that they may
gladden the living.” Both versions express “oil” which is not in the
Heb., and take Δ" Π as an adjective. But the Syr., as Janichs notes,
read the passive part. while the LXX. read O%Y with the Heb.
Classical parallels abound, such as Horat., Zfzs¢., i. 6, 36, 37, or
-the passage from Menander, quoted by Clericus, “ὀχ 7 supposed
that the gods which were useful to us were silver and gold only , for
having once established them in the house (εὖξαι τι βούλει, πάντα σοι
γενήσεται), pray for what you wish, all will be thine,”

20. See remarks on pp. 222, 223, and the story of Ben Buta given

on p. 20. On YT, see Glossary. On δὲ comp. Deut. xxiii. 3. bys
Ὁ Β)2Π, The K’ri erases the article as unnecessary. So in verse 3,
chap. vi. το, and in 1 Sam. xxvi. 22, This expression for a dird
is found also in Prov. i. 17. 12. So according to the Masora ;
it belongs to the few jussive forms to be found in the book. In his
note on p. 432 in connexion with the critical remarks on the text,
Delitzsch asks why did the punctuators, notwithstanding the pre-
sence of the ’, point the 7°” as jussive (subjunctive)? He remarks,
when we consider more closely such questions, the punctuation ap-
pears one of the greatest problems of literary history. The jussive
may here give a sort of climax to the passage. May not the reading
ΝΣ be regarded as K’thibh, and the punctuation δ᾽ be considered
as a case of anunnoticed K’ri? Comp. τ, 0°9¥ for HY, 2 See
Ges.-Kautzsch, § 97, 2, and note 1 on p. 258.

Parallels cited by Knobel and others are Juvenal, Sat, ix. 102 ff.;
Publius Syrus; Nullum locum sine teste esse putaveris. Plyumptre
compares on the reference to the birds, Aristophanes, Aves, 50, 575 ;
as also Anacreon’s ode to a pigeon.

432 The Book of Koheleth. [Ch. xi. 1-3.

CHAPTER XI.

τ. This passage has been sufficiently treated in pp. 223-227. It
is not necessary with our interpretation to explain ndtv in the sense of
cast away, it can equally well be taken in the sense of send, or send
forth. ‘The word cannot mean to scatter seed. Hitzig, who disputes
the correctness of referring the passage to beneficence, urges against
the latter view the fact that 88 does not mean Ὁ find again, but,
as Kleinert observes, when one finds that which one has cast away,
the idea of frrding again lics in the very circumstance itself. Hence
the signification of the verb is no conclusive argument against the
ordinary interpretation.

2. See remarks on pp. 225-228. Delitzsch would explain the
phrase apa pen 1 divide the portion into seven, etc. after the

analogy of Gen. xvii. 20, bya ab wand}, He considers the pon to
be the portion which the person addressed has in his possession.

3. See on pp. 190, 229, 230. In Abodah Zarah, 31 a, this verse
is explained by R. Johanan to mean where there is a distinguished
teacher one always find traces of his teaching. See also the German
transl. of that treatise by Dr. Ἐν C. Ewald, p. 222. D*3¥0 ought, as
Delitzsch notes, to have the accent merca which occurs in the best
MSS., and not mahpach, as in the ordinary editions of the Hebrew
Bible. Michaelis reads merca, though the majority of his MSS. have
the other accentuation. The accentuators.rightly connect Ot’) with
the conditional clause. ‘The older language would, according to
Delitzsch, in this case have preferred the use of the perfect in both
clauses (Ewald, § 355 4) to indicate that, as often as the one fact
occurs, the other invariably follows. Sce Driver’s Heb. Tenses, § 12.

In the second clause the protasis as it lies before us consists in
itself of two related parts (compare the two DN), Amos ix. 3), “aud
tfia tree falls on the south side, and (ar) if it fall on the north side,"
1.6. whether it falls on the one side or the other. The athnach,
which would have more correctly been placed at 1P"', marks off in

a more emphatic manner the protasis from the apodosis ; 18) on
unquestionably begins a new sentence, but there was a necessity for
a distinctive of high power to be placed upon the !2¥3,—Dedstesch.
Dip acc. of place, followed by ©, as in chap. i. 7 ; compare Esth.
iv. 3; vili. 17, where ἽΝ follows. The O% is not here to be con

Ch. xi. 3-51 Cretical and Grammatical Comin. 433

nected with the relative & which precedes, but, as the accents
indicate, with the 817! following. So also in chap. 1. 7. 41) is
the jussive from ΠῚΠ, imperf. 113! (though this form actually does
not occur), jussive 173, the νὰν receiving its kindred vowel, even as
yod under the same circumstances is pointed with chirik (*M!). The
δὲ at the end is only an orthographic addition, found in Arabic in
certain cases (Wright’s Azad. Gramm., vol. i. § 7, rem. a). See on
this usage in Hebrew, Ges.-Kautzsch, § 23, 3, rem. 3, and § 32, rem,
6. The form in this particular case, which is variously explained by
grammarians, is most satisfactorily treated by Konig, Lehrg., p. 597.
The participle of the verb 417 occurs in chap. 11. 22, see note there.
Delitzsch does not regard §17' in this place as jussive, but notes
that &17' thus written approaches near to the Mishnaic inflexion of
the imperf. of 717, whose singular is #7}, and plural ὙΠ᾿, Hence
certain Jewish expositors regard the form here as plural. The con-
text, however, requires the singular. Ewald (§ 192 ὁ) regards the
form as Aramaic, ΠῚΠ always being there used for 7, and the 4
passing over into δὲ (8 142 ¢), the formation being after the analogy
of a VY verb, like N13,

4. See p. 230.

5. See remarks on p. 231. παρ see Glossary. In his Zext.
hritisch. Bemerk, Delitesch calls attention to the following facts, viz. :
that ayoen has the daghesh in the 12, while on the contrary in Deut.
xxil. 9 and Amos ii. 13, the aNvign has the 9 with raphe. Dunash,
in his work Sefer Teshuboth, written against Saadia (edited by
Schroder, 1866), p. 35, maintains that the cause of the daghesh lies
in the pausal accent. Delitzsch suggests that the probable cause is
the same as noted in chap. x. 18 on 7730. With daghesh the word
is the substantive, not the participle. Observe the nice distinction
between the use of the participial 271 42'S in the protasis, and the
use of the imperfect ¥1) δ in the apodosis, as when we say, if thou
dost not know that, consequently thou wilt also not know this.—
Delitssch. Comp. Ps. exxxix. 15. See on this subject the remarks
in Wisdom vii. τ ff, and the observations of Marcus Aurelius,
x. 26. ταῦτα οὖν τὰ ἐν τοιαύτῃ ἐγκαλύψει γενόμενα. A remarkable
parallel to this passage occurs in the New’ Test. in John iii, where
in verses 3 and 6 the necessity of a new birth is insisted on, and
in verse 8 the expression is made use of, “the wind bloweth where it

F F

434 The Book of Koheleth. [Ch. xi. 5-9.

listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence
it cometh or whither it goeth; so is every one that is born of the
Spirit.”

6. See remarks on p. 231. On 121 2) TTR, see Ewald, § 361.
On 7’ see Glossary; and on ἽΠΝΞ, see also the Glossary under that
heading. ὈΠῸΣ refers to the ΠῚ and ΠῚ immediately preceding, which
are regarded as neuters. Comp. chap. vii. 18; on the other hand ΠῚ
and ΠῚ are treated as masculine in chap. vi. 5.

7. See p. 232, There are many parallels to be found in the
classic writers. Thus Theognis, 569, λείψω δ᾽ ἐρατὸν φάος ἠελίοιο.
Euripides, /phig. in Aulid., 1218, 1220, ἡδὺ yap τὸ φῶς λεύσσειν.
The Masora in x Sam. xvi. 7 and here, according to Delitzsch, has
py, while in Gen. iii, 6 and Prov. x. 26 it reads D2. Comp.
Kimchi’s A/ichlol, 53°.

8. See remarks on p. 233. (DN 3. Knobel and others trans-
late 3 here by yea, appealing to Hosea x. 5; Job vi. 21, εἴς,
Heiligstedt renders /mo. But the ordinary meaning of gia, “for,”
assigned by Rosenmiiller and Delitzsch, is more suitable. The 3 and
DN are to be taken apart “for, 7” asin Exod. vill, 17. The ‘2 in
the second part of the verse is, as Delitzsch notes, the explicative
guod ; comp. chap. ii. 24; iv. 4,8, 17, etc. Compare Horat., Carm.,
Lib, 1 ive τὸ, 173 x17) 8: way, all that which is coming, t.é. in
the future. Delitzsch compares Sanhedrin, 27 a, xandy IND from
the present and to the future, for which the expression ab nyd
occurs elsewhere. ;

9. See remarks on pp. 234 ff. 17IM2 only occurs here and in
chap. xii. τ. It is a later form of the earlier D°N2 found in Num.
xi. 28, So ΠῚ), Jer. xxxii. 30 instead of the common O19).

Δ) 757. See notes on Ὁ. 235. ‘722%. So the Kethibh has the
word in the plural, which is found in Cant. ii. 14. Gesenius regards
such plurals as poctic, Ledrgeb, p. 665. The K’ri prefers the
singular, The former refers rather to the multiplicity of objects
seen, the latter comprehends all ina single point of view. Many
MSS. have the K’ri reading. The ancient versions ought not to be
adduced as evidence in favour of that reading, OBt"22, See re-
marks on p. 235, and footnote 3, and on p. 236. Hoelemann
observes that this verse is the original of one of the most popular
of the student songs of Germany, the “Gaudeamus igitur,” the early

Ch.xi.g-xiir.] Critical and Grammatical Comm. 435

form of which was that of a penitential song of two stanzas. See Du
Meril, Poésies latines du moyen dge (1847); Schwetschke, Zur
Geschichte des Gaudeamus igitur (Halle, 1877). The first and third
stanzas are :—

“Gaudeamus igitur, juvenes dum sumus ;
Post exactam juventutem, post molestam senectutem,
Nos habebit humus.”

“Vita nostra brevis est, brevi finietur,
Venit mors velociter, rapit nos atrociter,
Nemini parcetur,”

ro, BYD ADM, See remarks on p. 237 and footnote. 14) 74pm,
see p. 238. The sentence of Publius Syrus, quoted by Knobel, is a
suitable parallel to the sentiment in the first part of this verse,
namely, ‘‘tristitiam, si potes, cave ne admiseris.” MIN’, This
word only occurs here. It is, as Delitzsch. observes, not to be con-
nected with NY, 216 dawn, with most expositors, comparing 1) Ps,
cx. 3, as in that case it would be identical with the preceding. ΠΥ,
and be tautological, but with the adj. ὙΠῸ d/ack, denoting the time
οὗ black hair (Targ. rightly, wy M2 Wi, the days of black hatr),
in contrast with the days when the hair is grey or white.. Hence we
render “manhood.” See Glossary. The LXX. render ὅτι ἡ νεότης
kal ἡ ἄνοια ματαιότης, thus translating @ by ἡ ἄνοια, which is followed
by the Syriac. Janichs considers that the. LXX. so translated the
word because they derived. it from the root OW, 7a be black, under-
standing it metaphorically to refer to the mind of. youth as enwrapped
in darkness. Johnston seeks (Zveatise, p. 128) to ἄταν δὴ inference
in favour of the Solomonic authorship from the occurrence of naib
and ὝΠΟ in Ps. cx., and that of nyt and nih’ in this passage.
But this is verily a grasping at straws.

CHAPTER XII.

1, TSN, On the plural and its significance see pp. 238 and 239,
and footnotes on both pages. A critic has privately suggested to me
that the clause might be rendered “ remember those shaping thee,” and
thus be synonymous with “Δὰν parents.” But such an interpretation
is simply impossible. 12 is never used of parents, but is always used

436 The Book of Koheleth. [Ch, xii. 1-5.

of a Divine creation. The singular wa “ thy Creator,” occurs with
reference to God in Isaiah xliii. 1, and 873 in the usual participial
sense elsewhere in Amos iv. 13, and twice in Isaiah xlv. 7, always in
reference to God. The use of the plural here causes no difficulty
whatever, see footnote on p, 238.

2. See remarks on pp. 239-245, and footnotes, also pp. 249, 253,
255-272.

3. See remarks on pp. 243 ff. and footnotes, also pp. 253, 256,
262, 272.

4. See remarks on pp. 245-251 and footnotes, pp. 254, 256,

say

262, 273. The expression on ‘ON bap Sawa is there sufficiently

explained. See on bey the note on p. 247. Some interpreters have
ventured to assign to the verb the signification of “ standing,” in the
sense of ceasing; appealing to the use of the expression, 32} 4p,
used of d/imdness. But the cases are not parallel. Hence Schmidt
and Schelling’s translation, ‘the sound of the mill stands (ceases) at
the voice of the cock,” or at cockcrowing, and, what is still worse (inas-
much as the verb is masculine and the noun for m// is feminine),
the translation, “the mill itself ceases,” are to be rejected. Di)”.
Delitzsch notes (in his Zearkritisch. Bemerk.) that this reading, which
is the reading which accords with the directions of the Masora, is
found in the Frankf. Cod. and the Cod. Heidenheim. The MSS.
in general have ΘῊΡ), contrary to the Masora. Seen. 3 on p. 247.
It might be possible to regard Dip" as an imp. indicative in σ (vid
Ges.-Kautzsch, § 72, rem. 2), but the existence of an impf. in a,
alongside of an imperf. in z, in the same verb would be anomalous.
5. See remarks on pp. 251 ff., 254-5, 256, 257-266, 273-4, and
footnotes, The noun D'NNNN is explained as a plural of intensity
by Bottcher, § 762. The plural signification of such words is not,

while the kindred nouns mippdo, all kinds of baskets, DYPron, palin-
branches, IPL, scales, ctc., all preserve the plural sense.

woby ΓΞ ΟΝ, See remarks on p. 201. Delitzsch notes that the
grave, according to Diodorus Siculus (i. 51), was also called
by the Egyptians “an eternal house”: τοὺς δὲ τῶν τετελευτηκότων
τάφους ἀϊδίους οἴκους προσαγορεύουσιν. Knobel observes that “ domus
«lerna” is found in Latin inscriptions (Zuscripé. ap. Gruter, pp. 790,
53 903,63; 913. The Targ. Jonathan (on Isaiah xlii. rr) terms the

Ch. xii, §-8.] Credecal and Grammatical ‘Comm. 437

tombs of the dead, fineby ‘Ma, “their eternal houses. So Tobit
(iii, 6) styles the grave τὸν αἰώνιον τόπον. Delitzsch cites the ex-
pressions, Sanhedrin, το a, ΟΦ ΤῸΝ ΓΔ she cemetery (eternal house)
of Husal; poi na ‘INA, 2 one eternal house, or cemetery ; pow ma 333 a
within the cemetery ; ob na yuna, “ at the door of the cemetery,” Vay-
yikra rabb,, c. xii. See other cases in Glossary under boy m2, These
facts prove the truth of the statement on p. 201. The Syriac trans-
lator did not, however, like the expression, and accordingly substituted
for it σιν Aad, “the house of his totl,” comp. Job iii. 17. There
is no reason to suppose that the translator had a different reading
before him, but it is worth noticing that a critic of authority has
suggested to us that the true reading of chap. iii. 11, may have been
Soyn-ns instead of DYN, The suggestion does not, however,
commend itself to our judgment.

6. See remarks on pp. 266-8, especially the footnotes there, and
on p. 274. There is no difficulty whatever in the derivation of the
verbal forms ΤῊ in the second clause, and $92 in the fourth clause
from }'¥7, although they are forms properly belonging to a verb ὙΨ,
For it is a well-known fact that verbs )’) and 1) frequently borrow
forms from one another.

7. See remarks on pp. 192, 268, 269. 3.0). Jussive, connected
with the N> “WS W of the preceding verse. The contrast in
meaning between the jussive, which is used in a subjunctive signifi-
cation, and the imperf, indicative in the second clause, which speaks
the language of fact, has been preserved in our translation. In the
Missing Fragment of the Latin Transl. of the Fourth Book of Esra,
edited by R. L. Bensly (Cambridge, 1875), there is a remarkable
reference to this passage in verse 78: ‘nam de morte sermo est :
quando profectus fuerit terminus sententiz ab Altissimo ut homo
moriatur, recedente inspiratione de corpore ut dimittatur iterum ad
eum qui dedit adorare gloriam Altissimi primum.” Justin Martyr
seems to refer to this passage of Koheleth in his Déal. cum Tryph.,
cap. vi, where he says, ἀπέστη ἀπ᾽ αὐτῆς τὸ ζωτικὸν πνεῦμα καὶ οὐκ ἔστιν
ἡ Ψυχὴ ἔτι, ἀλλὰ καὶ αὐτὴ ὅθεν ἐλήφθη ἐκεῖσε χωρεῖ πάλιν.

8. It is a matter of considerable doubt whether this verse ought
to be regarded as the conclusion of the book itself, or as the begin-
ning of the epilogue. There is much to be urged in favour of the
former view. We, however, incline to the latter; inasmuch as the

438 The Book of Koheleth. [Ch. xii. 8.

repetition here of the words with which the book opens appears
to be a reflection naturally suggested by the stanza with which the
previous section closes, rather than designed to be the close of that
section itself. The “and,” with which verse 9 opens, is thus more
naturally explained. Delitzsch, however, maintains the opposite
view, and his opinion is probably that of the majority of expositors.

The abruptness with which the epilogue is introduced, and its
didactic character, have led many critics to maintain that it is an
addition by a later hand than that of the author of the book.
So Déderlein, Schmidt, Bertholdt, Umbreit and Knobel, as well
as Krochmal, First, Graetz, and Renan, who belong to a different
category. Knobel assigns the following arguments in defence of
this opinion: (1) The entire addition is superfluous, and, in the
case of a book like Koheleth, absolutely objectless. (2) Koheleth
speaks of himself in this appendix in the third person, while in the
book he always speaks of himself in the first person. But note chap.
i. 1, 2. This is the more peculiar, since the author, in the epilogue
(verse 12), assumes the character of a teacher addressing his hearer
as “my son.” (3) The writer of the epilogue regards piety and the
fear of God as the great objects of the teaching of the wise. For,
although Knobel admits that the fear of God is recommended in
the former part of the book, he maintains that such is not the main
object for which the work was written. We need not discuss this
subject here, as it has been treated sufficiently in the earlier part of
our work, (4) Knobel maintains that the.teaching of the epilogue
on the question of a future judgment does not accord with the doc-
trine of the book. But see our remarks on pp. 235, 236. (5) He
argues further that the complaint “ef making many books there is no
end” scarcely comes with propriety from a writer who probably lived
in the Persian era. Hence the epilogue, according to Knobel, is to
be viewed as the work of a later hand.

In favour of the epilogue having been composed by the author
of the work, Delitzsch justly urges the fact that the Hebrew in
which it is written is indeed akin to the language of the Mishna,
but decidedly of an earlier type. The phrases used in it are com-
mented on, sentence by sentence, in the Talmud, as points in the
explanation of which there was considerable uncertainty. Delitasch
moreover adduces the following expressions which occur in the
epilogue and in the book itself. In verse 13 the words 8? DiapyTy

Ch, xii, 8,91 Cretical and Granimatical Comm. 439

are repeated from chap. v. 6; while the phrase pwi$s Nt is formed on
the same model as DJS NT WS YA in chap. vi. ro. Wi, which is
found twice in the epilogue (in verses 9 and 12), occurs no less than
five times in other parts of the book (chap. 11. 15 ; vi. 8, 115 vil. τι,
16), and only twice in any other part of Scripture (1 Sam. xv. 15 ;
Esth. vi. 6). The phrase-NIBON ΡΞ in verse 11 is akin to the phrases
peda bya in chap. x. 11, and 85)3 Sys, chap. x. 20. In verses 9,
10, 11, after two ideas connected together with the copula, a third
idea follows, attached dovvdérws; and the same peculiarity of con-
struction is found in chap. 1. 7; vi. 5. The unconnected beginning
nbap wna (verse 10), is also like YN 'N37, chap. i. 16, εἰς.

Other peculiarities might be adduced (and the force of what has
been already mentioned will be understood more fully when the
passage is examined clause by clause), but these are strong argu-
ments in favour of the unity of authorship of the book and the
epilogue, which has never been called in question until comparatively
modern times. Such peculiarities could scarcely be invented.

9. 0. Hitzig observes that this phrase is identical with that in
verse 12, save that here it is followed by the indirect narrative, and
in-verse 12 by the direct. See Glossary. "is properly a participle.
Ewald and Hitzig render it as an adjective (iibrig ist), ‘ and over and
above (this) there is to say,” etc. Gesenius, Knobel, Delitzsch, and
others regard it with equal propriety as taken adverbially in combina-
tion with the δ᾽ which follows. The punctuators have put a great
distinctive, zakeph gadhol, on the word in order to sever the con-
nection with the &% Hence we have in our translation rendered
“and moreover (note), that,” etc. LXX. καὶ περισσὸν ὅτι. Symm.,
(kat) ὑπερβάλλον.

_The question arising out of this verse is, who is Koheleth? Ac-
cording to our view, “ Koheleth,” used here without the article, is
contrasted with “the Koheleth” of the preceding verse, which has the
article (see pp. 100 ff.). Comp. ch.vil. 27. There would be nothing
new in a writer of a later date informing his readers that Koheleth
was a wise man, if Solomon were the person referred to, and no fresh in-
formation is imparted by the remark that Solomon taught the people
knowledge. Both statements would be evident truisms, conveying no
additional facts of any kind to the reader. The statements of the
verse, too, are peculiarly unsuitable, if supposed to come from the pen

440 The Book of Koheleth. [Ch. xii. 9.

of Solomon himself. Nor do they impart much information if sup-
posed to intimate that “the Koheleth,” who is represented in the
book before us as “ἃ wise man,” is the same person who composed
the comprehensive people’s book, the Proverbs. The expressions
appear to us too indefinite to be regarded as a reference to that
book. Morcover, every reader of the Book of Koheleth, in which
Solomon is unquestionably adduced throughout as the speaker,
would certainly be acquainted with the fact. that the authorship of
the Book of Proverbs was also ascribed to that king. If this be all
which the words convey, they: may indeed be characterised, with
Knobel, as ‘superfluous ” and “ objectless.” Explained, however,
in the sense assigned to them on p. 101, the words are neither
“superfluous” nor ‘‘ objectless.” If the author of the book took any
share himself in the final redaction of the Book of Proverbs by ‘“ the
men of Hezekiah” (see pp. 4, 5), and was led, as a result of such
work, to apply himself to make a further collection of ‘‘ wise sayings,”
the words in question would have far more significance than is ordin-
arily assigned to them. We cannot, however, go so far as to assert
anything as a fact for which no evidence can be adduced. All
traces of the author’s activity outside the limits of the book before
us have unfortunately been obliterated by the hand of time, but
we nevertheless abide by the interpretation of the verse presented
on p. 101. Johnston, in his Z7eatise, calls attention to the fact that
PN occurs in Prov. xxv. 2, among the first of the proverbs copied
out by “the men of Hezekiah,” and to the coincidence that in Prov.
xxii, 20, 21 ‘N2N2 occurs, corresponding with 2173 in Koheleth,
and NDS D8 corresponding also with NOX 737,

pyacms ot Wy, Οἱ “199 for ΞΡ, see Ges.-Kautzsch, $52, 2,
rem, 1. Kalisch, § xliv. 1; Bottcher, Zehrd., ὃ 1021 γ; comp.
non, chap. ix. 15. LXX. ὅτι ἐδίδαξε γνῶσιν: σὺν τὸν ἄνθρωπον, which
reading ὈἼΝΠ for DYN Graetz prefers. Aquila and Symm. have λαόν.
Field notices that two MSS. (Codd. 23, 253) have in the text καὶ
ἐδίδασκε γνῶσιν σὺν τὸν λαόν, which shows the manner in which
Aquila’s readings crept into the LXX, It was, as is known, the
habit of Aquila to translate NS when used as a mark of the accusa-
tive by σύν with an accusative following, according to a hermeneutic
rule of the Talmud. Comp. Derenbourg, Essai sur ? Hist. et la Geog.
de la Palestine dapres les Talnudes et les autres sources Rabbinigues
(Paris, 1867), p. 397. Graetz, Gesch., iv. p. 437. See n. on ch. ix. 2.

UA

Ch. xii. 9-11.] Cretecal and Grammatical Conime. 441

TWAS LXX. καὶ οὖς ἐξιχνιάσεται κόσμιον παραβολῶν, which
gives little sense, but probably ought to be read, as Prof. Delitzsch
has suggested to me, κόσμον παραβολῶν = D°wID pr, They must
also have read }?8. The Syr. translates Ἰδὲ by ἧς he heard. Aquila,
καὶ ἠνωτίσατο, καὶ ἠρεύνησε, Kal κατασκεύασε παροιμίας. See the Glos-
sary on [1% On the construction, “2 {PN IPM, see above. On IPN,
see the Glossary, and on 7277 Ὁ ΟΦ, the note on chap. i. 16, p. 320.

to. See remarks on p. ror. ‘PPI, Comp, "38 °N37, chap.
1. τό. PEMA, pleasant words, scarcely “words of comfort,”
(Ginsburg), comp. 13N7238, Isaiah liv. 12. LXX. λόγους θελήματος,
Aq. λόγους χρείας, in the sense of useful words, We 34ND). Hitzig
would prefer to read 253}, inf. absol., which would be quite possible,
but unnecessary. LXX. καὶ γεγραμμένον εὐθύτητος, reading 3103),
ΓΞ can scarcely with Ginsburg be translated by the finite verb,
“ wrote down,” for being the passive participle it cannot be made to
govern NOX 27 as its object. Aquila, the Vulg. and the Syriac,
which thus translate, probably read 21D), if not 031, 2)Π3 is the
participle taken in the neuter sense, that which was written, W
being the accusative of manner. Ges.-Kautzsch, § 118, 3; Kalisch,
§ 86, 4 On the asyndeton in this verse see note on v. 8, p. 439.

ir. See remarks on pp. τοῦ ff. ΠΞΞ, The LXX., Aq,
Theod., translate ὡς τὰ βούκεντρα, Gr. Ven., ὥσπερ βουπλῆγες. The
word, notes Delitzsch, is one of the three names for goads mentioned
in the Jerusalem Gemara (Sanhedrin, x. 1), 1277 from 377, J, 393, Ὁ
sharpen, to point ; and, from ab, to teach, to exercise in; and YI,
from Y1, gs \3, to hold back, repellere. Ue calls attention to the fact

that the > is ὦ, or more precisely the full vowel, like Swedish ἃ ; not
6, as Gesenius, Ewald and Hitzig have erroneously regarded it, for
the so-called light metheg, which under certain circumstances can
be’ changed into an accent (munach, merca, etc.), and kametz-
chatuph mutually exclude one another. See Baer’s Aetheg-Setzung,
§ 18 and § 27 end, in Merx’s Archiv. See also Ges.-Kautzsch, § 9,
rem. 2, Kautzsch observes that this fact is confirmed by the Baby-
lonian punctuation, as well as by the original Jewish grammarians,
though not on rational grounds. See Kimchi’s Afichloé, ed. Fiirth,
153 2and 182 ὁ. In his Zextkritik, Bem., Delitzsch notes that the

kametz is great kametz ὍΣΣ “DP opposed to ION YP), and can,

‘

442 The Book of Koheleth. (Ch. xii ταν

therefore, have the accent munach in place of metheg. Gesenius
(in Zhes.), Hitzig, Heiligstedt and others explain the word as mean-
ing pricks, the words of the wise being so termed because they pene-
trate deep into the memory and hearts of men. But, as Delitzsch
observes, for pricks, aculei, the Hebrews used D°S1P, while the 12217
were goads used for driving onwards, therefore s/imu/z, as the Vulg.
renders, He calls attention to the paronomasia between "37 and
ΓΔ, On nye and D'V) see Glossary. On the NIBDN bya,
see remarks on pp. 102 ff. and notes. Heiligstedt explains the term
as “lords of collections,” i.e. sayings which are collected, or collected
sentences. Kimchi, Grotius, Michaelis, Schmidt, and others interpret
the phrase as collectors of sentences. Not very dissimilarly Tyler,
“editors of collections,” learned men who collect together proverbs
as ears of corn, gathering up the sayings of the sages before them.
Graetz (see p. 98) proposes to read Di) NBS bya, explaining it,
the members of the Sanhedrin have handed them down from one
Shepherd. In the former clause he would also read D'Y1PN in place
of ΜῈ),

Kleinert renders the passage, “‘ words of the wise are as spikes
(Spiesse) and as nails driven in as protectors of the treasure-
chambers, placed by one Shepherd.” He explains the MSS to be
equivalent to the ΒΟ of τ Chron. xxvi. 15, 173; Neh. xi 25,
meaning storehouses, and the ΠΊΞΟΝ 4y3 to be the keepers, or protec-
tors of those treasure chambers of the temple. He calls attention to
the fact that the doors of the temple were provided with OD
(9909, 2 Chron. iii. 9; iq. MMP in this passage), vais. He
considers Koheleth to compare his proverbs to such nails as guard-
ing the sacred storehouses ; the meaning being that no person with-
out a commission from heaven should touch or add to the sacred
collection of proverbs. The writer, according to him, closes his
book with a warning like that in Rev. xxi. 18, το. Kleinert thinks
that the incorrect explanation of this verse gave rise to the tradition
regarding “ the fence,” or 4) which the Jews of later time strove to
erect round the Law (see p. τὸ and p. 464). The translation and
explanation are ingenious, but withal too: recondite. As to the
“assemblies” which other learned men have dreamed of here, we
read nowhere else about them; and the word N)5DX, as the cognate
DYADN (1 Chron. xxvi. 15, 17; Neh, xii. 25) shows, is used of collec-

Ch. xii11,12.] Cretical and Grammatical Comme. 443

tions of things, not of persons. See Bottcher, Lehrd., § 719, 8, vol. 1.
Ρ. 518.

The Syriac rendering, Jaana} ws is explained by Dean R. Payne
Smith in his Zhes. Syr., as “gui ad limina sedent, sc. in consessu sa-
pientum.” The Greek translators have all incorrectly regarded bya
as a preposition (and so throughout this book, comp. the LXX. ren-
dering of chap. v. 12 ; vii. 123 vili. 8), παρὰ τῶν συνθεμάτων; Aq.,
παρὰ τῶν συνταγμάτων ; Symm., παρὰ τῶν συναχθέντων. The Gr. Ven.
better, δεσπόται ξυναγμάτων.

TAS ΠΡ ὉΠ), Hitzig reads MIND YM, comparing for the con-
struction Isaiah li. 12. He understands the whole clause -to be,
“and like driven-in nails the collected (proverbs), which are presented
united asa pasture,” a very extraordinary statement, signifying that
the united proverbs afford a pasture in which one may feed. But
the traditional punctuation, 7M¥ ΠΡΟ, is supported by the LXX.,
ἐδόθησαν ἐκ ποιμένος ἑνός, the Vulg. and Syr. ; and, moreover, Hitzig’s
conjecture destroys the very point of the passage, which is to show
that the collection of proverbs by Koheleth, as well as the earlier
collection by Solomon, is to be traced up to the same Divine origin.
See p. 104.

12. See remarks on p. τος. On 7" see note on verse 8. Hitzig
translates the clause, ‘and for the rest, by these, my son, be in-
structed,” ze by these sayings of Koheleth (verse 10), not by the
sayings of the wise spoken of in verse 11, hence 797, not nbs, But,
as Delitzsch notes, 1712 does not mean 20 be instructed, but is used in
the sense of 20 be admonished, to be warned, and 12, though it might be
connected with a niphal, as in Gen. ix. 11 ; Isa. xxviii. 7, yet after 70°
is naturally to be connected with it, and with the verb following
(comp. Esth. vi. 6, Sofa vii. 7, comp. Ps. xix. 12). The mn
is probably what ἐς more than these things, which have already been
mentioned. See note on p. τοῦ and p. 469. Buxtorf, in his work, De
Abbreviaturis Hebraicis, p. 226, notes that the saying common among
the Rabbins, 771N 37D ἽΠῚ" Dp 9372 VAM 123, “my son, attend
to the words of the scribes more than to the words of the Law,” is
founded upon this text.

The second part of the verse is rightly subdivided by the Hebrew
accentuation into two clauses, “of making many books there ts no
end, and much study is a weariness of flesh.’ The statements are

444 The Book of Koheleth. (Ch. xii. 12, 13.

commented on at p. 103. They are well summed up in the words
of C. A. Bode (1777), quoted by Delitzsch, polygraphia nullus est
fins, ef polymathia corpus delassat, and are well rendered by the
LXX., Aquila, and Symm., τοῦ ποιῆσαι βιβλία πολλὰ οὐκ ἔστι περασμός,
καὶ μελέτη πολλὴ κόπωσις σαρκός. It is highly probable that in an age
of mental unrest like that in which Koheleth lived there were writers
who ventured to handle the problems touched on in his work in a
different spirit from his own, and that the writer may have here had
such in view. It is unlikely that there is any reference whatever, as
Zirkel supposes, to the philosophical works of the heathen. It is quite
possible that the writer may have had in his mind the numerous works
of Solomon alluded to in τ Kings v. 12, 13. ‘Tayler Lewis’s idea,
defended at length in his Appendix to Zockler’s Introd. pp. 31 ff,
that DD is here used in the sense of chapéers or sections of the pre-
ceding books, and that the clause means “of making many chapters,
sections, cantos, or books, there is no end,” is utterly unsupported by the
usage of the word, and was plainly invented to answer Zockler’s
argument in favour of the late date of the book drawn from this
allusion to a numerous literature; an argument however, to which
only a very subordinate weight is to be allowed on account of the
very scanty information we possess on the subject. Hitzig would
render the sentence, “of making books without end is a weariness
of the flesh.” But Delitzsch remarks that “the nomen actionts [inf.
const.] MWY with its object is the subject of the sentence, of which
it is said, }'2 1S, 1} ἐς wethout end, the assertion of Hitzig that it (in
this case) should be YP mp YS is not justified, because Ἰδὲ is a
virtual adjective, endless, as by PS, Deut. xxxii. 4, etc., and as such
is the predicate of the substantival sentence.” On and, which is
not to be rendered, with Luther and Herzfeld, by preaching, see
Glossary.

13. The initial letter in this verse is printed in the Hebrew text
large, }\D, probably in order to draw attention to the importance of
the passage. "Dis used here in the sense of the fixal wor, the
sum of the words of Koheleth ; LAX., τὸ τέλος λόγου, τὸ πᾶν ἄκουε;
Vulg., finem loquend? pariter omnes audiamus, and so the Gr. Ven.
But 935 for 123, as Delitzsch observes, is contrary to the Hebrew

style, and moreover in’ the whole book 55m is used generally of
things, not of persons, Hitzig renders: “/¢ ws hear the end of the

Ch. xii. 131. Cretzcal and Grammatical Comm. 445

whole book,” which is possible, but would probably have been other-
wise expressed ; Ewald translates (Zefrb., § 291 a), “ the last word
of all” is. yaw) is regarded by Ewald, § 168 4, as a participle in
the sense of audiendum ; but YOY) as participle is only auditum, that
which is, or has been heard, and can have the sense of audiendum
only when that sense suits the context in which it occurs; that is,
in cases where the participle can be rendered as well auditum as
audiendum, which is not the casein this passage. Comp. Lat. in-
victus = zzvinetble, yw) may be here regarded as the pausal form
of the perfect, in which case the literal rendering would be “ the end
of the matter, all is heard,” or, as Hoelemann, “ enough, all is heard,
since, etc.,” for what is contained in the book is the essence of all
knowledge, and is summed up in the two following doctrines. It is,
however, better to take the word, with Delitzsch, as the participle,
and render it as on p. 105. The Syr. translate after the LXX. the
yt’) by the imperative rendering, “the sua of the matter in its end ts,
Hear everything!” After “fear God and keep His commandments,”
the Syr. adds at the end of the verse, “for this [namely, ‘keep His

commandments ’] is that which is given by the one Artificer [Ze.
OO » a 7

B rar

Maker] to every man,” πον: ἢ οι] δὴ μιοοΪ «το; ase NG Wen
Ginsburg notes that the Yow) bon corresponds exactly with MDW Son,
chap. ii. 16. On the circumstantial clause here comp. chap. x. 11;
Deut. xxi. 1; see Ewald, § 341 & “After Yow S3n rat AAD, the
athnach stands where we would put a colon, the mediating hocce est
is omitted, as in chap. vii. 12.”—Deditzsch.

pan 55 nro, Hitzig explains this sentence as if a negative
clause were omitted, “avd not them only, but this ought every man to
do.” Tt scarcely means, as Ewald, Herzfeld, after the Vulg. hoc est
enim omnis homo, for ‘this ts the whole man,” that is, the end of man’s
earthly existence. Similarly LXX., ὅτι τοῦτο πᾶς ὁ ἄνθρωπος ; and
Symm., πᾶς 6 ἄνθρωπος ; and the anonymous transl. mentioned in
Field’s LHexapla, τοῦτο yap ὅλος ὃ ἄνθρωπος. So Dale and Bullock,
after our A. V., “ this ἐς the whole duty of man.” Tyler explains the
clause after the formula of the Mishna boar iM, “this ἐς the general
rule,” or “this is the universal law.” These and other interpreta-
tions are all open to the objection urged by Delitzsch, “that
ΝΠ ὍΘ. never signifies the whole man or the whole (all) of man.

446 The Book of Kohelcth. (Ch. xii, 13, 14.

It means either αὐ men (πάντες οἱ ἄνθρωποι, οἱ πάντες ἄνθρωποι, οἱ
ἄνθρωποι πάντες), as chap, vii, 2, DIN ba HAD SIT; or it is equivalent
to DIN, every man (πᾶς ἄνθρωπος), as chap. iii. 13; v. 18 (LXX.
etc., chap. vil. 2, τοῦτο τέλος παντὸς ἀνθρώπου), and it is more than
improbable that the more common expression should have been
used here in a meaning unexampled elsewhere.” The clause means
literally “¢hzs is every man,” and has been explained “ ths ts of
every man,” i.e. the duty of every man. Zirkel (p. 50) explains it as
a Greecism like τοῦτο παντός ἀνθρώπου (ἔστι χρῆμα). Others supply
a verb from the preceding clause. Hitzig supplies 1'2¥'1 after the
analogy of Deut. xx. 19; and Ginsburg "t*. Similarly Bottcher
(Coll. Heb., p. 176), who regards the predicate omitted here as per-
fectly intelligible from the connexion of the words. Delitzsch con-
siders the construction as most easily explained from the habit in
the Shemitic languages of subject and predicate being often simply
united together without any connecting link, it being left to the
hearer or reader himself to supply the relation between the two.
Thus, Ps. ex. 3, M372 WY, “ Thy people (are) Sreewill offerings,” 1.6.
offer themselves willingly ; Ps. cix. 4, | nbon Ὁ NS), “and 7 (am) prayer,”
fe, give myself entirely to prayer. So Koh. iii. το, “che cheldren of
men are a chance.” So here, “this zs every man,” i.e. this is every
man’s duty. In Berachoth, 6 6, the question is asked, “what is the
meaning of DISA bo ΠῚΡ R. Eleazar said, ‘the Holy One said,
blessed be He! the whole world would not have been created except
on account of this (77 draws ΟΝ R. Abba bar Kahana said, that
‘this word is of equal importance as the whole world.’ R. Shimeon
bar Azzai said (some say, R. Shimeon ben Zoma), ‘the whole world
would not have been created, save for this command to be given.’”

14. See pp. 105, 106, also p. 236. The article is omitted here
with 087492, while it is expressed in chap. xi..9, but the “judgment”
referred to is determined by the description which is annexed, and,
therefore, does not require the article.

pdyrba by Comp. κρίνει ὃ Θεὸς τὰ κρυπτὰ «7.4. Rom. ii. 16, καὶ
φωτίσει τὰ κρυπτὰ κιτιλ. 1 Cor. ἵν. 5. The Syriac adds after Ὁ}
the gloss [po ἀφ, “and manifest,” 122), ὙΠῈΡ should not be
ignored in translation. It has a special ‘significance here. The
athnach, as Delitzsch observes, stands correctly on pdys, as that word

Ch. xii, 141 Cor2tzcal and Grammatical Comme. 447

is not closely connected with what follows; the 7 ON) 21O7ON

belongs to the mwyn-$s which precedes, which is accentuated with
zakeph katon to emphasize its importance.

The Book of Koheleth is one of the books referred to in the
Masoretic mnemonic PPN*. The books so noted are Isaiah, indicated
by the ", the Minor Prophets by the 1 (1D, the Twelve), the double
P denoting severally Koheleth and Lamentations (M12"P), In read-
ing these books in the synagogue, in order to avoid the harsh expres-
sions with which they close, the verse preceding the last is required
to be repeated by the reader at the end.

APPENDIX.

Excursus I.—The Talmud and the Old Testament Canon, with spccial
reference to the Hagiographa.

Excursus II.—On the Talmudic statement that “the Holy Scriptures
defile the hands.”

Excursus III.—“ The Men of the Great Synagogue.”

Ixcursus IV.—Grammatical peculiarities of the Book of Koheleth, and
Glossary.

449 Gic

RACURSUS I,
THE TALMUD AND THE OLD TESTAMENT CANON.

THE principal passage of the Talmud which speaks of the Canon
is as follows. The difficulties experienced with respect to the Book
of Ecclesiastes will be found noticed in § 3.

δι. THE TRADITION AS TO THE CANON :—

The great passage generally appealed to as giving the opinion
of the Synagogue with respect to the Canon occurs in Baba Bathra,
144 andis a. In order that it may be better understood we have
thrown it into paragraphs with explanatory remarks, noting, after the
example of Strack,! the questions and objections it contains.

“ Our Rabbis have handed down (VN i.e. 3 ὉΠ) chat the order
of the Prophets (8 2) a IMD) zs Joshua, and Judges, Samuel and
Kings, Jeremiah and Ezekiel? Isaiah and the Twelve [Minor Pro-
phets].

“{ Question.] Hosea is the first [of the Minor Prophets], because
it is written, Zhe beginning of the word of the Lord to Hosea
[Hosea ii. r]. And how [did he speak first] to Hosea? Rabbi
Johanan ὃ says that he was the first of four prophets who prophesied
at the same time, and these were, Hosea, Isaiah, Amos, and
Micah. Should then Hosea stand first [ze before Jeremiah, or

1 See his article on the Kanon des Alten Testaments, in Herzog-Plitt, Read-
Encyklopadie f. protest. Theologie und Kirche. 2te Aufl. Band vii. (1880).

2 Jeremiah occupies this place because his work contains many chapters which
are a continuation of the history contained in the, Second Book of the Kings.
Considerable variation prevails as to the order in which the books of the greater
prophets follow one another in Hebrew MSS. See Strack, pp. 433, 441. It
may be well here to note that the Baraitha itself (1’N), i.e. the text of the old
tradition, is given above in italics in order to distinguish it from the observations
made thereon by the later Talmudists.

3 That is R. Johanan ben Nappacha. Strack notes that he was brother-in-law
of the Resh Lakish.

457

452 Lxtursns 1, δι.

before Isaiah as the first of the four contemporaneous prophets] at
the commencement (Nt"73 yennd map) ? [Reply.] Forasmuch as
his: prophecy was written (14) 3923 ANNI INIT 13) along with
Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi, and that Haggai, Zechariah and
Malachi are the end of the prophets, it was reckoned along with them
qaqa mm 2), [Odjection.] But it might have been written by
itself cavyind mans‘), and (have been placed) at the beginning [l.e.
before Jeremiah]? [efZy.] Because it is so small it might be lost
(B39 ATT YN), [ Question.) Then Isaiah (lived) before Jeremiah
and Ezekiel, (therefore) Isaiah stands first at the beginning (before
both)? [fety.] Forasmuch as (the Book of) Kings ends with de-
struction, and all Jeremiah is about destruction, and the beginning
of Ezekiel is about destruction, and its close about consolation, and
all Isaiah is about consolation, we join destruction to destruction,
and consolation to consolation [ze. the Book of Isaiah is for this
reason placed according to the Jewish order immediately after the
Books of the Kings].

“ The order of the Kethubim [the Hagiographa] zs: Ruth} and the
Look of the Psalms, and Job, and Proverbs, Koheleth, the Song of
Songs, and Lamentations, Danicl, and the Roll of Esther, Esra, and
the Chronicles.

“| Question.| And if any one says Job was in the days of Moses,
therefore Job should be first at the commencement (of the Hagio-
grapha)? [feply.] It [the book of Job] begins with misfortune, we
do not (thus) begin [a division of the Scriptures]. [Odyection.] Ruth
even (tells of) misfortune [to wit, famine. and exile, the death of
Elimelech and his sons]. [Δ δέν. It is misfortune which has a
happy end (AMNS md ΤΙΝῚ myn x7). For Rabbi Johanan says,
Wherefore was her name called Ruth? Because David descended
from her who refreshed pA, lit. caused him to drink| the Holy
One, blessed be He! with songs and praises.”

“[ Question.| And who wrote them [7.e. the various books of Holy
Scripture]? [Rep/y.] Moses wrote his book and the section concerning
Balaam [containing, as Rashi notes, “his prophecy and his parables,

1 It is placed thus at the beginning because it closes with the genealogy of
David, the author of the majority of the Psalms,

2 This derivation of M7 from Ieb. ΠῚ, Chald. and Syriac ‘17, is ingenious,
but, of course, not the real etymology of the word.: a

§1. The Talmud and the Old Testament Canon. 453

although they are not necessary parts of Moses and his Law, and the
series of his doings”). Joshua wrote his book and the eight verses of
the Law [Deut. xxxiv. 5-12]. Samuel wrote his book, and Judges, and
Ruth. David wrote the Book of Psalins with the assistance of [or, in
the place of, " “Ὁ, Ze. 7 by 1} ten elders, with the help of Adam the
first [part of Ps. cxxxix. is ascribed to him, especially vv. 15, 16, 17];
with the help of Melchizedek [Ps. cx.], and with the help of Abraham 3
[Ps. Ixxxix.], Moses [Ps. xe.], Heman [Ps. Ixxxviii.], Jeduthun [Pss.
xxxix., xii, Ixxvii.], Asaph [Pss. 1, Ixxiii.-lxxxiti.], and the three
sons of Korah [Pss. xlii—xlix., lxxxiv., Ixxxv., Ixxxvii., Ixxxviii.].
Jeremiah wrote his book, and the Books of Kings and Lamentations.
Hezekiah and his college wrote (3 12) pwd) 13ND 1Ny"D! MPIN) Isaiah,
Proverbs, the Song of Songs and Koheleth. The Men of the Great
Synagogue wrote (#}9°D 2) 13n3 mbyrain MDI WIN) Ezekiel and
the: Twelve (Minor Prophets), Daniel, and the Roll of Esther. Ezra

1 Ethan the Ezrahite CTR), the author of Ps. Ixxxix., is identified (Bala
Bathra, 15 a) with Abraham, on the supposition that Abraham is referred to in
Isaiah xli. 2, ‘‘ who hath raised up the righteous man from the east (FWD).

? Strack and other scholars render 1° by “with the help of,” and the phrase is often
used in that signification, But it is also used in the sense of ‘2 the room of,” and so
Bloch explains the phrase in this place in his Studien zur Gesch. der Sammlung der
altheb. Lit, pp. 126 ff. He quotes Shesalim,i.6,7, oy wy Sy nen a dy Spree
radipo sie yop 1° Sy tay, “he who pays the temple-shekel on behalf of a
woman, for a poor person, for a servant, for one under age, is free from the
exchange ” charged on such occasions. So in Afegil/a, 24 a, YAN JOP 77 ON)
wy by PIDW IDV AS, and if he is young, his father or his teacher shall do it in his
stead." Wlence Bloch explains the passage above to mean that David wrote the
Psalms in question for the ten elders whose names are found mentioned in their
titles, 2.2. he put these Psalms in their mouths, and wrote, as it were, from the
several standpoints which those older patriarchs might have been supposed to have
severally occupied. If this be the meaning of the passage, it shows that the
Talmud recognised such literary devices as perfectly lawful and in no way incon-
sistent with Divine inspiration. "

3 wD is the mnemonic word (]!9°D) for the books whose names follow: ὃ for
Tsaiah, for sun Proverbs, V for ὉΠ WY the Song of Songs, and P for
Koheleth.

4 The mnemonic 3p or ΔΓ ἼΡ is very peculiar, as the letters of which it is
composed are not the initials as in the former case, but are in most cases mcdials,
Strack and others explain it thus, P for Sssprn}, Ezekiel, 1 for Wy DW, the
Twelve (Minor Prophets), I for Daniel (the only ἐπ δαὶ letter used in the mne-
monic) and ἃ for INDN M749, the Roll of Esther.

454 Eeveursus Wo § a.

wrote his book and the Genealogies (00%) of the Book of Chronicles
down to himself! This is a proof in favour of Rab; for Rab Jehudah
said on the authority of Rab, that Ezra did not go up from Babylon
until he had written out his genealogy, and then he went up. And
who completed it [the Book of Ezra]? Nehemiah ben Hachaliah,
Mar [supposed by some to have been the author of this Baraitha, or
supplementary addition to the Mishna] says, Joshua wrote his book,
and eight verses of the Law. The tradition is, as one might say, that
Joshua wrote the eight verses of the Law from, and Moses the servant
of the Lord died there |Deut. xxxiv. 5]. . . . And Joshua wrote
his book ; and the writing, ad Joshua the son of Nun the servant of
the Lord died [Joshua xxiv. 29 ff.], Eleazar finished it. And the
writing, and Eleasar the son of Aaron died [Jos. xxiv. 33], Phinehas
finished. Samuel wrote his book. And the writing aud Samuel died
[τ Sam. xxv. τ ff], Gad the seer finished and Nathan the prophet.

This passage in the Talmud (as may be seen from its perusal 77
extenso) does not profess to impart information respecting the manner
in which the Old Testament canon was formed. It does, however,
contain a list of all the books regarded as canonical, and proposes
to. give information as to the mode in which they assumed their
present shape and appearance. But it 15. taken for granted that
throughout the books referred to are books su generis, books of
authority, whether handed down originally in writing, or committed
to-the memory of faithful disciples, and thus transmitted to posterity
long prior to the time when the prophecies alluded to were written
in a book and arranged in the order in which they now appear in
the Jewish Scriptures.

It is clear, as Strack observes, that the sense of the passage above
entirely depends upon the signification assigned to the word 23,
to write, which in one form or other occurs: so frequently within its
compass.” Herzfeld has strangely endeavoured to show that it is
used here in five distinct significations, but his views on this point
have rightly been rejected by scholars. It is also putting violence
on the word to regard it, without some qualifying statement in the

ry Ἵν. Rashi explains the clause to mean ‘‘as' far as his (Ezra’s) own gene-

alogy. But R. Chananel says that 1 here stands for 191, the first word of
2 Chron, xxi. z, which verse Iizra had prefixed to his own genealogy. See Levy,
Neuheb. κα. Chald. W.B., 5..κ. 32.

2 See his article on the Canon, p. 418.

§ 1. The Talmud and the Old Testament Canon. 455

context, as signifying to zrife in, or το introduce into the canon.!
Strack rightly maintains that Rashi in his Comm, on the passage in
Baba Bathra, has given the correct interpretation of the word. A
summary of Rashi’s comments as given in Buxtorf’s Zzberias, p. gt,
will be found in pp. 5,6. But it may be well to give here a full
translation of his remarks. They are also cited in Strack’s article.
“The college of Hezekiah wrote the Book of Isaiah, for Isaiah
was put to death by Manasseh, but the prophets wrote their
books first before [1.6. not until immediately before] their death
(nv 50 NON |T|D DvaND DNVaIA NY)». The Men of the
Great Synagogue, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi, Zerubbabel, Morde-
cai, and their comrades, wrote the Book of Ezekiel. I know not
any other reason why Ezekiel himself did not write it [his book],
except that his prophecy was not designed to be written outside (of
Palestine). They wrote therefore his prophecies after they went to
the [Holy] Land. And so with the Book of Daniel who lived in
exile, and with the Roll of Esther. The Twelve Prophets, because
their prophecies were short, did not write them, (that is) each prophet
(did not write) hisown book. When Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi

went up (from Babylon), and saw (pono wap my ww) that

1 The word scems, however, to be uSed in that signification in A/egr//. 7a, where we
read: MINTS sans owand ἼἽΠΌΝ ond andy [in place of 15, Levy, Mezheb.
W.B., ». v. gives from a MS. the reading D2] ΝῊ ynand ybn mb ane
[Levy reads 15, omitting spo] sap > ἸΝΥΟ ay oar xd) owdy ΟΣ
MWD) IRI ANaY ΠῸ NXt 3nd WDA wat ΓΝῚ and MINA Ans
nina ANDY 7D WHOA OKIID ANAL AD jy Dt ΠῚ, “Esther sent to them,
to the learned men [the Scribes], write [copy] me for the generations (to come),”’
or, according to Levy’s reading, ‘‘ write me in the book,” z.e, receive me (my book)
into the Canon. ‘*‘ They sent to her, Have I not written for thee three corde
pointed as oy v, Prov. xxii. 20—is here interpreted aise, threefold]
but not four [which Levy explains in reference to the three divisions of the Canon,
viz. Pentateuch, Prophets, and Hagiographa, to which no fourth part could be
added]; until that they discovered [as authority] for it [or, for her, according to
Levy’s reading] a passage written in the Law, ‘ wrtte this as a remembrance tn the
book (Exod. xvii. 17],’ ‘ write this’ (Nt) that which is written here and in the
Second Law [Deut. xxv. 19]; ‘as α remembrance’ (}YV31), that which is written
in the Prophets [1 Sam. xv. 2 ff.}; ‘2 @ d00k’ (1DDA), that which is written in
the Roll (Levy reads WINDS nbaoa, in the Roll of Esther];” the latter referring
to the fact that the destruction of Haman the Agagite, 2.6. an Amalekite, is
recorded in the Book of Esther. But even in this passage it is the context alone
which gives the peculiar significance to the verb ‘‘ ἐσ write.”

456 Fixeursus 1, § ὃς

the Holy Spirit was departed [from Israel], and that they were
the last prophets, then they rose up and wrote their prophecies [2 6.
those of the Minor Prophets], and they united together the short
prophecies, and they made a large book (1513) OANA 12Π5
5γ1) BD DINey OY ΤΡ N12), that they [the books of the lesser
prophets] might not perish because of their: small size.”

The sense of the passage in the Talmud evidently is, that the
college of Hezekiah first wrote out and edited for popular use, copies
of the Books of Isaiah, the Proverbs, the Song of Songs and
Koheleth. In the case of the Book of Proverbs, there was added
in the edition thus issued, a number of additional aphorisms, which
either had not been written down previously, though preserved
by having been committed to memory, or actually found by these
early editors existing in separate manuscripts. These proverbs were
added to the original book drawn up by Solomon (Prov. xxv. 1).
A similar work was performed at a later period by the Men of the
Great Synagogue for the prophecies of Ezekiel and Daniel, and ot
the Minor Prophets, as well as for the Book of Esther ; the contents
of these several books having been in former times, committed to
memory by disciples interested in the preservation of these sacred
relics of antiquity. ‘The preservation in this manner of important
works need occasion no surprise, since we know that the body of
tradition, comprehended under the name of the Mishna (“the Second
Teaching”) was actually in existence, and taught orally to Jewish
scholars, long prior to the time when it was committed to writing
by R. Jehudah the Holy; and moreover that the Mishna itself only
comprehended the heads of the various subjects treated of more fully
in the Gemara (or, “ Perfection”), which, though committed to writing
several centuries later than the earlier portion of the Talmud, yet
contains within its compass material which dates as far back (if not
further) as many ordinances found in the earlier collection. Neither
the Mishna nor Gemara would have been committed to manuscript,
had not the circumstances of the era imperatively demanded the
adoption of such a course, which had been long opposed by the
Jewish scholars (see p. 482).

Bloch calls attention to the fact that the Baraitha already quoted
from Baba Bathra was not observed by the strictest Talmudists.
The order of the Scriptures followed in most Hebrew MSS. is not
that laid down in this part of the Talmud, though it is found in a few

Γ
i

§ 1. The Talmud and the Old Testament Canon. 437

MSS. See Strack, p. 441. For this and other reasons, Bloch main-
tains in his Studien (pp. το ff.), that this Baraitha was only the private
opinion of some individual teacher, the directions in which, not being
backed up by sufficient authority, were not regarded as binding.

The Tosafoth (a commentary on the Talmud) on Baba Bathra,
15 ὦ, says: ‘‘ Hezekiah and his college wrote Isaiah: because Heze-
kiah caused them to busy themselves with the Law, the matter was
called after his name. But he [Hezekiah] did not write it (the Book
of Isaiah) himself, because he died before Isaiah, since Manasseh,
his successor, killed Isaiah.” The words are; 1203 1ny°D) ΠΡῚΠ
xd xin Sass wow Sy atm ΝΡ mina proyd ond oan ΠΡΊΝ ond mye

rnd 297 33 13 Aw mound op nid nw 12}

Fiirst, in his work (Der Kanon des alt. Test. nach den Uebertte-
Jerungen in Talmud und Midrasch), maintains that the Hezekiah
mentioned in Baba Bathra as having written or edited the Books of
Isaiah, Proverbs, the Song of Songs and Koheleth, was Hananya ben-
Hiskiya ben-Garon, or (if the name be transcribed after the fashion
of the English Bible), Hananiah the son ot Hezekiah the son of
Garon, who lived in the time of Hillel and Shammai, in the century
before Christ, The Talmud (S/add. 13 4), says that “Hananya ben
Hiskiya ben Garon and his college” (1NU°D) Mptn {2 7°33N) wrote
the Megillath Taanith, or the Chronicles of the Fasts, in which the
later festivals are pointed out on which fasting was forbidden. The
authority of Hananya on questions connected with the interpretation
of scripture was held in high repute.! He is said to have been visited
in his old age by Hillel and Shammai and their disciples in the upper
chamber of his house, where with his assistance eighteen enactments
forbidding all intercourse with the Gentiles were drawn up. This story
contains an anachronism (see p. 457). But as Hananya is said to
have, after much study, harmonised the contradictions supposed to
exist between the Book of Ezekiel and the Pentateuch,? and mention
is made of his “College,” First maintains that that body is to be
identified with “Hezekiah and his college.” Fiirst’s ideas on this

" On Hananya ben Hiskiya, see Bacher’s interesting articles on Die Ageada der
Tannaiten, in Graetz’s Monatsschrift fiir Gesch. u. Wissenschaft des Fudenthums,
for March, 1882, p. 118.

3 The asserted contradictions are enumerated in’ AZenachoth, 45a, where the
remark is made that Elijah will explain them when he comes. They consist

chiefly in differences between the various measures mentioned in connexion with
the offerings spoken of in Ezekiel xlvi., and those commanded in the Law of Moses,

458 Lveursus Ἰ. § ἃ.

point have been generally rejected by scholars. The use of the
phrase 1YD\, and of the name “Hezekiah” in both cases, is a
slender foundation on which to erect such a superstructure. The
word SUD denotes @ society of any kind, whether it be a body of
learned men, or of youths under instruction, or even of soldiers.
The proper names moreover are far from identical. According to
the ordinary reading of the Talmud (.Shadd. 13 4), the teacher referred
to was Hananya, whose father’s name was Hezekiah. But, accord-
ing to Graetz (Gesch. der Juden, vol. iii. pp. 494-502), his proper
name was Eleazar, his father’s name being Hananya and his grand-
father’s Hezekiah.

The Jewish synod, in which the eighteen enactments were passed
forbidding all intercourse with the Gentiles, was an assembly in
which the doctors of the law belonging to the school of Shammai
were more numerous than those belonging to that of Hillel, and in
which the decision of the majority was finally accepted at the point
of the sword.1. The Synod met in the stormy days which preceded
the final rebellion of the Jews against the Roman power in the days
of Trajan. The Megillath Taanith, of which Hananya ben Hiskiya
ben Garon was the author, was, according. to Graetz, directly con-
nected with that insurrection. An attempt was made about the
same time to strike out of the Canon certain books which seemed
to contradict passages in the Law of Moses, and the Book of
Ezekiel was retained in the Canon mainly through the strenuous
exertions of Hananya, Shammaite though he was, In consequence,
however, of the efforts of the national party, a ban was placed,
probably not for the first time, upon the study of apocryphal writings
and of Greek learning in general, which had up to that time been
cultivated by many Jews. ?

§ 2. THe THREEFOLD DivisION OF THE JEWISH SCRIPTURES.— The
triple division of the Jewish Scriptures is mentioned by Josephus
in his work Against Apion (Lib. 1, § 8.), written about a.D. 100.

Τ See Jerusalem Talmud, Shaddath, i. 6; also Talmud Babli, Szabéath, 13 ὁ.

2 Dr, M. Joél, in his BUichke in die Religionsgeschichte 21 Anfang des swetten
christl. Jahrhunderts (1. Der Talmud und die griechische Sprache), maintains that
the opposition to Greek learning and to the Greek translation of the Scriptures,
dates really from the time of the great rebellion against Trajan. It is highly
probable that the hatred against the Greek language existed at a much earlier

period, but that it was revived in the era referred to, when the Romans stepped
into the position of the Greeks as oppressors of the Jewish nation. Sce ἃ. on p. 38.

§ 2. The Threefold Division of the Scriptures. 459

He speaks there of the Jewish canon, not as a canon recently agreed
upon, but one recognised as authoritative for centuries. “ For
we have not myriads of books, differing with and opposing one
another, but twenty-two books only, containing the history of all
past time, which are justly believed to be divine (τὰ δικαίως θεῖα
πεπιστευμένα), and of these five are those of Moses, which contain
the laws and the tradition concerning the generation of men (καὶ τὴν
τῆς ἀνθρωπογονίας παράδοσιν) down to his own death. This period of
time embraces nearly three thousand years. But, from the death
of Moses to the reign of Artaxerxes, the king of the Persians after
Xerxes, the prophets who came after Moses wrote the events which
occurred in their time in thirteen books; but the four remaining
books contain hymns to God (ὕμνους εἰς τὸν Θεόν), and precepts of
life for men (καὶ τοῖς ἀνθρώποις ὑποθήκας τοῦ βίου). But, from the time
of Artaxerxes down to our own time, all events have indeed been
written ; but they (the books) are not deemed worthy of the same
credit as those before them, because there was not the exact suc-
cession of the prophets (τὴν τῶν προφητῶν ἀκριβῆ διαδοχήν).

The number 22, here assigned to the Sacred Books, is generally sup-
posed to have been chosen by Josephus as being that of the letters of
the Hebrew alphabet (as suggested by Jerome in his Prolog. galeatus).
Strack, however, considers Josephus simply to have followed in this
particular the Alexandrian manner of reckoning. The thirteen
books are counted up in the following way—(1) Joshua, (2) Judges
and Ruth, (3) τ and 2 Samuel, (4) 1 and 2. Kings, (5) Job, (6)
Isaiah, (7) Jeremiah, and the Lamentations, (8) Ezekiel, (9) The
Twelve Minor Prophets, (10) Daniel, (11) Ezra and Nehemiah, (12)
1 and 2 Chronicles, (13) Esther. The four books of hymns and
ethics are the Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Canticles.!

1 The ordinary arrangement of the books in the Hebrew canon is in three great
divisions ; I, ‘*The Law,” called also, ‘‘the five-fifths of the Law,” namely,
Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy. II. The Prophets—(a) the
earlier Prophets : Joshua, Judges, 1 and 2 Samuel, 1 and 2 Kings (reckoned alto-
gether as forming four books), (4) the later Prophets : Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, the
Twelve, 2.6. the Twelve Minor Prophets (all the later Prophets being thus regarded
as comprising four books). III. The Hagiographa (or Holy Writings), or Ketha-
bim (the Writings), consisting of (a) the Poetical Books ; Psalms, Proverbs and Job,
(ὁ) the five Megilloth or ‘‘ Rolls,” to wit, Song of Songs, Ruth, Lamentations,
Koheleth, Esther, and (¢) the three books which have no common name, Daniel,

Ezra and Nehemiah (the two latter being counted as one), and 1 and 2 Chronicles,
reckoned also as one book, thus making in all twenty-four books.

460 Lveursus 1. § 2.

The statement of Josephus agrees substantially with what Jerome
says in his preface to the Book of Kings, which preface is commonly
known as the Prologus galeatus, Jerome sought to discover a
reference to the twenty-two Hebrew letters. in the twenty-two books
of the Old Testament, and saw also a connexion between the fact
that in the Hebrew Alphabet five letters have a double form, the
second exclusively employed at the end of a word (1, 9, 1, ἢ, 7’,) and
the fact that in the Old Testament there are five books which are
double, namely, 1 and 2 Samuel, 1 and 2 Kings, 1 and 2 Chron.,
1 and 2 Ezra (Ezra and Nehemiah), and lastly, Jeremiah with his
Lamentations. The order of the several books mentioned here
by Jerome as that adopted by the Jews of his time, is somewhat
peculiar. First, the “‘Thorath” or the five Books of Moses. Next
the Prophets, comprehending Joshua, Judges and Ruth (as one
Book), τ and 2 Samuel, r and 2 Kings, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel,
the Twelve Prophets. Thirdly, the Hagiographa, namely, Job,
Psalms, the three books ascribed to Solomon, viz. Proverbs, Eccle-
siastes (Accoeleth), and. the Song of Songs, Daniel, 1 and 2 Chroni-
cles, Ezra (Ezra and Nehemiah), Esther, which is the last in his
arrangement, thus making in all 22. He notes, however, that some
reckon Ruth and the Lamentations among the Hagiographa, and
thus make 24 books, corresponding to the four and twenty elders
of the Book of the Revelation. Jerome further observes that the
double books were often (a plerisgue) counted separately,! thus
making the number of books, 27, as is now generally done. In
his Preface to the Book of Daniel he seems to prefer reckoning
the books as 24 ; namely, 5 in the Law, 8 in the Prophets, and 11 in
the Hagiographa.

Inasmuch as Graetz maintains that the Canon of the Old Testa-
ment was not finally settled until the Synod of Jamnia (A.D. 99), he
is forced to question the conclusions usually drawn from the state-
ments of Josephus. According to Graetz’s contention, the Book of
Job could not have formed one of the historical books referred to
by Josephus. He denies that Ruth and Lamentations were reckoned
parts of Judges and Jeremiah. He would regard Ruth as one of the
historical books alluded to by Josephus, and transfer Job to the
third division, as one of the books which contained “ hymns to God

} But in this latter point Jerome is incorrect. See Strack, pp. 437-8.

§ 2. The Threefold Division of the Scriptures. 461

and precepts of life.” Inasmuch as Graetz maintains that the Canticles
cannot be included under such a description, he regards that book
to have been excluded from the canon of Josephus. He has his
doubts whether Koheleth was included therein or not, inasmuch as
the four books described by Josephus might be Job, Psalms, Proverbs,
and Lamentations, or Job, Psalms, Proverbs, and Ecclesiastes.

Graetz’s opinions on this point have not met with the approval
of the critics. The testimony of Jerome shows that in his day the
Books of Ruth and Lamentations were regarded by some as forming
part respectively of the Books of Judges and Jeremiah. It must
be borne in mind that, in counting the books as 22, Jerome followed
the authority of the LXX. There is nothing strange in the idea
that Josephus should have regarded the Book of Job as historical,
though, as he nowhere directly refers to that book, we cannot be
certain as to his ideas regarding it. The Book of Job is cited by
Philo as one of the sacred books. The main object which Josephus
had: in view in his work Against Apion, was to point out the his-
torical faithfulness of the Jewish records, and this naturally led him
to speak of the historical and prophetical books as one class. They
are alluded to, moreover, only in general terms in one simple sen-
tence, ‘‘the prophets after Moses wrote down what was done in their
day, in thirteen books;” and the critic who ventures to deny that
such a description does not suit the Book of Job as well as the
volume of the Twelve Minor Prophets is not deficient in hardiness.

The evidence of Josephus is decisive in favour of the view that
the canon of the Old Testament had been closed long previous to
his time. For, in the clauses which immediately follow the pas-
sage already quoted, Josephus remarks: ‘but it is evident, indeed,
how we believe in our own Scriptures. For, although so long
a period has already elapsed, no one has dared to add or to take
away anything from them, or to change them. But it is implanted in
all Jews directly from their very birth to:esteem these books as
oracles of God (Θεοῦ δόγματα), and to abide by them, and if neces-
sary, even to die for them.” And Josephus contrasts the manner
in which the Greeks regarded their literature with the reverence
exhibited by the Jews towards the Sacred Writings.

Although modern criticism has made it impossible to endorse in
all their details the statements of Josephus on this subject, yet it
may safely be maintained that he would not have ventured to use

462 Excursus I. ὃ 2.

such language had the Canon of the Old Testament been only
finally settled at the Synod of Jamnia (a.D. 90).

The only real argument which Graetz adduces in support of his
view is that the Palestinian canon of the Prophets consisted only of
eight books. In defence of this assertion he adduces the statement
in Baba Bathra, 13 6, that “Boethos ben Zonin had the eight
Prophets in one volume.”! These eight prophets Graetz recounts
as Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and the
Twelve Minor Prophets. The argument seems to be a fevitio
principii, for it is impossible to prove that both Ruth and Lamenta-
tions were not included in the volume as part and parcel of Judges
and Jeremiah, which the statements of Josephus, Melito, Origen and
Jerome seem to show was an ordinary custom. The number e/g/r,
on which Graetz lays such great weight proves nothing, as the same
enumeration of “eight books of the Prophets,” is found in Origen
and Jerome.

Following up the hint thrown out by de Wette, that in the ex-
pression contained in Dan. ix. 2, “I understood by the books”
(O%)D2 N32), reference is made to a collection of the prophetic
writings in one volume, Graetz draws an important argument in
favour of his peculiar views from the fact that in the old Talmudic
writings the prophetic books, as distinguished from the Law, were
called DDD (The Writings), which name was only used to denote
the books used publicly as lessons in the synagogue, and therefore
excluded the Hagiographa, which, with the exception of the Book
of Esther, were not thus used.

But Delitzsch has well pointed out that in Bada Barhra, i. 6, all
the canonical books, without exception, are designated by the appel-
lation PT IND, “ Holy Scriptures,” and also that in ALegri/a, i. 8;
111. 1, and Shabbath, 115 ὦ, all the sacred books, with the exception
of the Thorah, are spoken of under the term. BSD, “sie books.” In
Shabbath ταῖς a, a distinction is made between the Holy Scriptures
(ep 93ND) in which they read and those in which they do not read
(JA PP PSer Pad 173. pNP? 1)3}, that is, as Rashi expounds the clause,

Vyas Sys ῬΡΩΥΉΡ peers mayo 1S pner par ya pinvaa neyo
that is, MY 12 abs sa a by AMS. The Boethus (ΔΊ ΓΞ, Bon#ds) mentioned
here was, according to Miiller (Seferzm, p. 44), not the founder of one of the sects
of the Sadducees (see p. 131), spoken of in the 450th R. Nathan, chap. v., but a
well-known teacher of the Law, who lived in the time of R. Jehudah the First.

§ 2. The Threefold Division of the Scriptures. 463

between the books out of which the haphtaroth, or lessons for public
service, are read, and the books from which no haphtarah, or lesson,
is selected.!

The triple division of the Jewish Scriptures was distinctly referred
to by our Lord under the name of “the Law of Moses, and the
Prophets, and the Psalms” (Luke xxiv. 44). But it must be noted
that it is by no means certain that all the books of the third division
in general are included under the heading “Psalms.” It is quite
possible that our Lord referred only to the Book of the Psalms as
being the most important book of that division, and the one in which
the most numerous Messianic prophecies are found. See the important
observations of Strack on the New Testament evidence in favour of
the Canon, on p. 427 of his article. In the New Testament the
Jewish Scriptures as a whole are usually spoken of as “the Law and
the Prophets,” or as “Moses and the Prophets,” even in cases in
which quotations are made from the Book of the Psalms, which was
included in the third division or Hagiographa (Matt. v. 17; vil. 12;
xi. 13; xxii. 40; Luke xvi. τό, 29, 31; John i. 45; Acts xiii. 15,
30, 40; xxiv. 143 xxviii, 23; Rom. iil. 21). All the books of the
Old Testament are also sometimes spoken of under the title of “ the
Law” (John x. 343 xii. 343 xv. 253 1 Cor. xiv. 21), although the
Mosaic writings are in general specially referred to under that name.

A like usage may be observed in the Talmud. Though the
Pentateuch is specially designated as the Thorah, or ‘‘ Law,” the
Holy Scriptures in general are sometimes alluded to under that
appellation. Thus, in Jedamoth, 7 ὦ; Pesachim, 92 a, the Books of
Chronicles are spoken of as Thorah, and so with regard to the Book
of Proverbs in Aboda Zarah, 58 6, while the expression 2732} 71N,
the IV’ritten Laz, is commonly used of all the Old Test. writings.
Bloch has (Studien, p. 7) also given further instances.

The writers of the Old Test. Scriptures are generally designated
in the New Test. as “prophets” (Luke xxiv. 25; Acts xiil. 27;

1 Dr. Joel Miiller in his A/asechet Soferim, der Talmudische Tractatder Schreiber
(Leipzig, 1878), pp. 41 ff., has pointed out that the Mishna often designates the
Nebiim [the Prophets] and the Kethubim [the third division or Hagiographa]
by the one and the same expression, and observes that, while the old Tanaites
according to the Mishna (Yadaim, iii. 5), designate all the Scriptures by the
expressions WIP 92ND, Holy Scriptures, and also D°11N3, the Baraitha and
Tosefta (. Hashana, ii.) speak of the collection of the Prophets and Hagiographa
as strictly separated from one another.

464 Excursus 1, § 2.

Rom, 1. 2; xvi. 26; Heb. i. 1), and in the Old Testament, Ezra
(chap. ix. ro ff.), quotes the directions of the Pentateuch as the
commands of “the prophets.” One may compare with this usage
the passages cited by Bloch from the Targums and Midrashim
(Studien, p. 12) in which the writers of the Hagiographa are similarly
designated, and their sayings ascribed to Divine inspiration.

The testimony of Ben Sira to the Jewish canon has been already
discussed briefly on pp. 40 ff.! For a satisfactory discussion of the
various modes of enumeration of the books of the Old Testament as
forming 22, 24, and 27 books, we must refer to Strack’s able article
onthe Canon, in which the statements of the Talmud, as well as the
testimonies of Philo, Melito, and Origen (which must here be passed
over) will be found duly discussed. The student will find these
also noticed in Bleek’s Zinleitung, as well in the second and third
editions edited by Kamphausen, as in the fourth by Wellhausen.
We can here only briefly refer to the evidence of the 2nd Book of
Maccabees (chap. ii. 2, 3, 13, 14), which, though regarded by Geiger
and Graetz as worthless, is, in spite of the legendary matter with
which it is connected, of great importance on account of the testi-
mony borne to the Jewish canon, and the mention there made of
the collecting together of the Sacred Writings in the days of Nehe-
miah, and in the early days of the Maccabees. The writer men-
tions the I.aw or Pentateuch in verses 2 and 3, and the other two
divisions of the Old Testament Scriptures in verses 13 and 14. The
latter are spoken of as “the (writings concerning) the kings and
prophets (τὰ περὶ τῶν βασιλέων καὶ προφητῶν), the former probably
denoting the books of the writers styled by the Jews “the former
prophets,” and the latter the books of ‘‘the later prophets,” the two
ordinary sub-divisions of the writings known as “the prophets.”
The third division of the Jewish Scriptures is alluded to by the writer
of 2nd Macc. as “‘the (writings) of David (καὶ τὰ τοῦ Aavid),” so called
(85, perhaps, in Luke xxiv. 44) from the first book in that division.
The epistles of the kings concerning the holy gifts (καὶ ἐπιστολὰς
βασιλέων περὶ ἀναθεμάτων) which were deposited in the library of
Nehemiah, were probably the decrees of the Persian monarchs hav-
ing reference to the restitution of the Temple service in Jerusalem,?

' See on the points connected with the Talmud and Ben Sira, p. 467.
>» See the observations of Pusey on this head, in his Daniel the Prophet, pp.
305, ff.

§ 3. The Aboth of R. Nathan. 463

Nor is the testimony of the Fourth Book of Ezra (Second
Esdras) without its value, as that book was probably composed by
a Hellenistic Jew of Palestine at the close of the first century after
Christ. It bears witness in favour of the 24 books of the Jewish
canon in the curious passage in chap. xiv. 44-48. The correct
reading in verse 44 is “nonaginta quatuor,” winety-four in place
of the common reading “ducenti quatuor,” two hundred and four,
found in the A.V. translation. The “seventy” writings which were
to be preserved and delivered only to the wise men of the Jewish
people, added to the twenty-four canonical books which were to be
published, in order that all, worthy or unworthy, might read them,
make up together the “ninety-four” books spoken of in the vision.

§3. THe ΑΒΟΤΗ oF R. NatHan.—We must here quote the passage
from the Aboth of R. Nathan alluded to on p. τι. This tract in the
Talmud follows the Treatise Aboth, and is a kind of commentary
on it, interspersed with numerous legends and interesting anecdotes.
In its exposition of the second saying of the Men of the Great
Synagogue (see p. 10), “be deliberate in judgment,” it says: “In
what way is a man taught that he should be deliberate in judgment?
That every one who is deliberate in judgment is quiet in judgment
(p73 awn 1.12 nan 550), as it is written, ‘even these are proverbs
of Solomon which the men of Hezekiah king of Judah copied out’
[Prov. xxv. 1], and not only because they copied them out OP nyt),
but because they were deliberate (1*nonw NON) in doing so,
Abba Shaul says, not because they were deliberate, but because they
interpreted them (1/Dt),2 At first there were persons who said that
the. Proverbs and the Song of Songs and Koheleth were apocryphal
(17 D134), because they [the books] spake parables [homely proverbs],
and were not of the Kethubim [the Hagiographa]; and some stood
up and declared them apocryphal (BMS 723} 172¥1), until the Men
of the Great Synagogue came and interpreted them ; as it is written,

1 See Fritzsche, Libri Apocryphi Veteris Testamenti Grace (Leipzig, 1871), and
Strack’s article on the Canon, pp. 414 ff. On a reference made in the missing
fragment of the 4th Book of Esdras, discovered by R. L. Bensly of Cambridge,
see our crit. comm. on chap. xii. 7.

? In interpreting 1P'NYNT to mean “they were deliberate,” the verb is regarded
as the causative of PNY Zo de οἰά. The men of Hezekiah are regarded as having
acted according to the Horatian precept, ‘‘nonumque prematur in annum” (47s
Poet., 388). Abba Shaul takes the verb in its more usual meaning of ¢o copy out,
or fo translate and explain.

HH

466 Excursus 1. § 5.

‘and I beheld among the simple ones, etc.’ [here follows Proverbs vii.
7-20, with the omission of verse 8, the homely plain-spoken lan-
guage of which gave offence, see p. 11]; and it is written in the
Song of Songs, ‘Come, my beloved, let us go forth into the field, ete.’
[here follows Cant. vii. 11-13, which passage also gave offence, and
then immediately after]; and it is written in Koheleth, ‘ 2ezorce,
young man in thy youth, etc” [Koh. xi. 9, see remark on p. 12, and
then follows]; and it is written in the Song of Songs, ‘/ am my
beloved’s, and his desire is toward me’ [Cant, vil. 10]. All which is a
proof ["7] that it was not that they [the Men of the Great Syna-
gogue] were deliberate only, but that they interpreted.”

This passage is very different as it appears in the edition of the
Aboth of R. Nathan, edited by Salomon Taussig.! It there runs as
follows : ‘They said three things, be deliberate in judgment, that

they should persevere and produce when suitable ὧν weryamy ἸῸΝ
WIE), and thus they found with the men of Hezekiah as it was
written, ‘even these are the proverbs of Solomon’ |Prov. xxv. 1}.
What is the doctrine taught in ‘even these?” Is it not that they were
deliberate in judgment? ‘ IVAich the men of Hezekiah king of Judah
copied out? But why is it so said? Because, I say, the Proverbs,
and the Song of Songs, and Koheleth were apocryphal (197 D'133)
until that they were among the Kethubim (Θ᾽ 31Π23 j72' WY), In the
Proverbs why does he say, ‘she is loud and stubborn’ (Prov. vii. 11]?
In the Song of Songs, [why] ‘@ bundle of myrrh is my wiell-beloved
unto me’ (Cant. i.13]? In Koheleth, [why] ‘Rejoice young man in
thy youth’? Another explanation of ‘ which they copied out, is not
that they copied out, but that they zz/erpreted or expounded.”

It is worthy of note here that Bloch (Studien, pp. 130 ff.) explains
the ‘three things,” or “three words,” ascribed to the Men of the
Great Synagogue, differently than generally interpreted. According
to-him the first saying, “ be deliberate in judgment,” refers to the estab-
lishment of tribunals for the promotion of justice and righteousness ;
the second, “zaise up many disciples,” to the setting up of schools of
sacred learning; while the third, “ sake a fence to the Thorah,” or

1 nib ΠῚ). LZ Theil, enthaltend Aboth di Nathan in einer von der gedruckten
abweichenden Recension, Seder Tannaim w'Ammoraim und Varianten su Pirke
Aboth. Aus Tandschriften der Konig]. Hof- und Staatsbibliothek zu Munchen —
herausgegeben und erlautert von Salomon Taussig aus Miinchen (Miinchen, 1872,

K. Hofbuchdruchkerei, E, Huber), ᾿

§ 4. The Talmud and the Book of Ben Stra. 467

Law, he regards as a direction to take care above all things to
secure the correctness of the sacred text in general. He maintains
that the expression, “ Law,” is used in this passage not of the
Pentateuch as distinct from the other portions of the Sacred Writings,
but of all the Holy Writings (see p. 463). In this particular, Bloch
has adopted the view of Krochmal and Hartmann.t That 7717 can
be taken in the sense of 7)¥9, and that reference is made to such
ordinances as those of the late Rabbins, may be questionable,
especially if we regard the “three words” as actually those of the
Men of the Great Synagogue. According to Bloch’s explanation
the sentences are full of deep significance. The latter clause need
not be interpreted with Krochmal as referring to the settlement of
the. Masoretic text, but may refer to the sending forth of correct
copies of the Sacred Writings, and even to the establishment of a
fixed canon of Holy Scripture.

$4. THe Boox or Ben Sira.—The passages on which Graetz and
others have maintained that the Book of Ben Sira formed at one
time a portion of the canon have been given in note 2, on p. 48.
But it is necessary here to observe that there were two distinct
classes of “extraneous books,” or of books outside the canon, which
were severally regarded with very different feelings.

The most important passage which speaks of these books is that
in the Jerusalem Talmud, Sazhedrin, x., alluded to on p. 47. The
Mishna of that chapter says (27 @), “ All Israel has a portion in the
world to come. But these persons have no. portion m the world to
come, namely, he who says there is no resurrection of the dead in
the Thorah, or that the Thorah is not from heaven, or (he who is)
an Epicurean. Rabbi Akiba says, he also who reads in the extrane-
ous books, and he who mutters over a wound, and says [as a charm],
“Ewill put none of these diseases upon thee whith I have brought upon
the Egyptians, for Tam the Lord that healeth thee’ [Exod. xv. 26].°
Abba Shaul says, and he who pronounces the Name [17] according

1A. Th. Hartmann, Die enge Verbindung des Alten Testament mit dem Neuen.
Hamburg, 1831, pp. 130 ff.

2 It is interesting to note that this passage alludes to the cures performed by
early Christians. St. James once desired to cure a sick Jew, but was not per-
mitted to do so. See Jer. Talmud, Adadah Zarah, ii. fol. 40 ὁ. See the trans-
lation of the passage in F. C. Ewald's Adedah Sarah (Niirnberg, 1868), p. 198,

and Smith’s Dict. of Bible, under article “ Fames.” On R. Akiba’s position,
see Graetz, Gesch. der Fud., iv. p. 108.

468 FEexcursus 1. § 4.

to. its letters.” In the explanation of part of this given in chap. x.
28 a, “Rabbi Akiba says, even he who reads in the extraneous
books,! as for instance the books of Ben Sira (ND 13. "AD 1.23), and
the books of Ben Laanah (Aww 13. 5D1), but the books of Haméram

(ὉΠ ED Sax), and all the books which were written from that
time and onwards, we may read in them as one reads in a letter.”

Inasmuch as there was only one book of Ben Sira, Graetz, Joel,
and other Jewish scholars would read here and in the Talmud Babli,
Tosephta Yadaim, cap. ii. (ed. Zuckermandel, p. 683), the singular
8D in place of the plural "5D.2 Graetz proposes considerable
transpositions in this passage, reading ὉΠ MDD, “ the books of the
heretics,” in place of “ the books of Ben Sira.” in the first clause; and
then inserting the clause 87D 13 45D DaK, “but the book of Ben Sira,”
before * the books of Ben Laanah,;” and for “the books of Haméram”
(sée p. 470) reading ΘΠ MHD, and translating “she day-books.”
But Dr. M. Joel maintains that the correct reading in place of “ ‘He
books of Ben Stra,” which may have been introduced from Yadaim
ii, is “the books of Ben Satda” (ΘΟ 3 ED), 1.6. the Christian
books.

According to the Zosephta Yadaimn, the Book of Ben Sira, though
held in high favour, stood on the border line which separated the
canonical from the non-canonical, or extraneous books.# ‘lhe Jews
were permitted to read it and other non-inspired books cursorily,
just. as one might read an ordinary letter froma friend. But such
books were not to be studied too much. The command of the Law
was that the Divine Word was to be the constant subject of study
(Deut. vi. 6 ff.) ; David meditated therein day and night (Ps. i. 2;
comp. Jer. xxxili. 25). There was, therefore, no time to waste in
the minute examination of other writings. Heretical books were to

1 Joel observes (Bliche in die Relizionsgeschichte, Der Talmud und die griechische
Sprache. p. 70, note) that the Gemara instead of the eatrancous bovts, has here
ΡΥ ΝΠ MED, “che books of the Sadducees,” but the correct reading is certainly
DIA YIDD, ‘‘ che books of the heretics.”

3 See note 1 on p. 49.

* Satda, or Sateda, Sotcla, NIDD, NTDID, is the name given in the Talmud
to the Virgin Mary, and contains a reflection on the Virgin as an apostate or a
woman unfaithful to her husband. The passages in which the Blessed Virgin is
thus spoken of, and the Lord Jesus is called Son of Soteda, or worse, Son of Pandera,
his supposed father, are among the saddest found in the Talmuds.

1 See note on p. 48, and also Strack’s article on the canon, pp. 430, 431,

§ 5. Zhe Talmud and the Book of Koheleth. 469

be altogether avoided ; other extraneous writings, even when unob-
jectionable, or of value, were to be but lightly regarded in comparison
with the Holy Scriptures. In the passage immediately following
that cited from the Jerusalem Talmud, reference is made to Koh.
ΧΙ, 12, in order to prove that such books might be used indeed
for study but not for the weariness of the flesh. The Midrash
Koheleth, possibly reflecting the greater strictness of a later age,
says, “‘ Every one who brings into the middle of his house more than
the 24 books [of the Canon] brings confusion (779 in Koh. xii. 12
is here interpreted 1'172) into his house, as for example the Book
of Ben Sira and the Book of Ben Tiglah, for much study (1373 39)
is a weariness of the flesh, and those books are intended for medita-
tion (123 mano) but not for weariness of the flesh,” or intense study.
It is not necessary to do more than call attention to the parono-
masia in these passages both in ‘Talmud and Midrash.

5. THe Book or KoneLetH.—The length to which our Excursus
has extended forbids us here to quote the passages in full which
beat on the Book of Koheleth, some of which have been alluded to
in'our work. But we must here add from Bloch’s interesting treatise
on the Ursprung und Entstehungszeit des Buches Kohelet, p. 144, a
list of the following passages of the Talmud in which sayings of
Koheleth are quoted as authoritative Scripture by ancient teachers of
the Law,—Berach. 16 ὁ, Shabb. 30 ὁ, 151 ὁ, Pesach. 53 ὁ, Chage.
15 ὦ, Jebamoth 21 a, Kethub. 72 ὁ, Kid. 30 a, 33 ὁ, 40 a, Nedarin
15 a, Menach. 110 a, Sebach. 115 ὦ, Sanhed. 101 a, Baba Bathra
14 a, Sheb. 39 6, Abodah Zarah 27 b, Jerus: Berach vii. 2 ff., Zosefta
Berach cap. 2. Bloch calls attention to the fact that the book was
cited by Hillel and Simeon ben Shatach, which is a conclusive proof
that the hypothesis of Graetz as to its origin in Hcrodean days is
purely imaginary.

EXCURSUS 1.
ON THE HOLY SCRIPTURES DEFILING THE HANDS.

Tue question is asked in Shabbath 14 a, why the Holy Scriptures are
included among those things to which uncleanness is imputed accord-
ing to the Rabbinical regulations (M1013)? The answer given there
is, in order to prevent the Holy Scriptures being kept along with the
heave-offerings, a practice which had arisen from the notion that all
holy things ought to be kept in the same place, and which had led
to injury being done to the Scriptures. The uncleanness referred to
is that of the second degree, that is, the Holy Scriptures are not sup-
posed to render anything unclean for ordinary use, but to render it
unfit to be given as an offering to the priests.

This regulation was made while the temple was still standing, as
is evident from the reference made to the Terumah or the heave-
offering. It was one of the regulations of the School of Shammai,
and was universally acknowledged by the Pharisees. The Sadducees,
however, seem to have turned it into ridicule.

Thus in Vadaim iv. 6 we read: “The Sadducees say, ‘we object
against you, Pharisees, that you say the Holy Scriptures make the
hands unclean, but the books of Haméram [heretical writings] do not
make the hands unclean.’ Rabbi Jochanan ben Zaccai said, ‘and
have we nothing else against the Pharisees but this alone, for behold
they say the bones of an ass are clean, but. the bones of Jochanan
the high priest are unclean?’ They [the Sadducees] said to him,
‘According to their estimation (τς. value, worth) so is their un-
cleanness, in order that a man may not make the bones of his father
and mother into spoons. He said to them, even so the Holy Scrip-
tures, according to their estimation [/e. the value in which they are
held] is their uncleanness ; the writings of Haméram which are not
esteemed, they do not make the hands unclean.”

The phrase translated here ‘‘ the writings of Haméram” is usually
read in the Talmud 09997 AD, But the reading is doubtful; another

470

On the Tloly Scriptures defiling the hands. 47%

reading is with an Ὁ, “the books of Haméras,” which latter has
sometimes been incorrectly emended into DIN2N, Gr. Ὅμηρος or
Homer. Graetz, in his Koheleth, defends the second reading,
which he explains as being the Gr. ἡμερήσια. βιβλία, day-books. Dr.
J. Levy, in his Meuheb. und Chaild. WB. (under articles 0197, and
Dn), maintains that the correct reading is D0 "5D, and that
Merom (512 or 07°) was the name of a heretical writer whose
writings are not now extant, but who composed works similar to
those of Ben La‘anah (nav 131) and Ben Sira. If, however, the
reading ὉΠ BD be correct, the 7 cannot be regarded as the
article, but must be viewed as an integral part of the proper name.

Delitzsch calls attention to the fact that the same maxim is spoken
of in Nidda 55 a, where it is made the subject of the following jest:
“The skin of an ass is clean, but the skin of a man has been declared
by the wise as unclean, in order that no one may use the skin of his
father or mother for the saddle of an ass.”

The controversy in the Jewish schools concerned three books of
Scripture, namely, the Song of Songs, Koheleth, and in some aspects
the Book of Esther. The question in dispute was, not whether these
books should be received for the first time into the Canon ot
Scripture, but whether, having been admitted into the Canon at a
earlier date, they had been properly so admitted, and whether there
was not sufficient proof from internal evidence to justify their ex-
clusion from that Canon.

. Delitzsch observes that the principal places of the Talmud which
speak of this controversy are as follows: Yadaim iii. 5,—* All Holy
Scriptures (WTP "Δ Π3 23, or, according to the preferable reading
wp sana 55) defile the hands [or render them unclean]. The Song
of Songs, and Koheleth defile the hands. Rabbi Jehudah says the
Song of Songs defiles the hands, but as to Koheleth there is a dis-
pute (npionip ndmpr), Rabbi Jose says, Koheleth does not defile the
hands, and as to the Song of Songs there is a dispute. Rabbi
Simeon says Koheleth is one of the lax points of the school of Sham-
mai (2.6. one of the points on which that School is more lax than that
of Hillel) and of the rigid points of the School of Hillel. Rabbi

: που, means τυσγημτυοσαῖ, but who Ben La'anah was, or what was the nature

of the work, termed elsewhere the Book of Ben Tiglah (ban 13 75D) is un-
known. Some suppose them to have been works of an apocalyptic character,

472 Excursus (1.

Simeon ben ‘Azzai says, I received by tradition from the mouth of
the seventy-two elders in the day when they inducted Rabbi Eliezer
ben ‘Azariah into the seat of patriarch, that the Song of Songs.and
Koheleth defile the hands. Rabbi ‘Akiba said, Mercy and peace
carey DN)! no man of Israel disputed concerning the Song of Songs
that it did not defile the hands, for the whole world is not equal
to the day on which the Song of Songs was given to Israel, for all
of the Kethubim (0°21n3h bot’, the Hagiographa) are holy, but the
Song of Songs is holy of holies ;1 and if they have disputed, they
have not disputed except with regard to Koheleth. Rabbi Jochanan
the son of Joshua, the son of the father-in-law of Rabbi “Akiba, said,
According to the words of Ben ‘Azzai thus they disputed, and thus
they decided,” 24, they disputed with regard to the two books, the
Song of Songs and Koheleth, and ultimately decided that both the
books defiled the hands, or in other words were worthy to be re-
tained in the sacred Canon.

The same controversy is alluded to in Ediyoth, v. 3 (9 2), in the
following terms, which throw some light upon the previous quota-
tions: “ Rabbi Ishmael said three opinions were of the lax points
of the school of Shammai, and of the rigid points of the school of
Hillel ; (v7z.) Koheleth does not defile the hands according to the
opinions of the school of Shammai, while those of the school of
Hillel say it defiles the hands. What then was the sin which their
commandments made? The school of Shammai pronounced
(them) clean and the school of Hillel pronounced them defiled.
Coriander seed the school of Shammai pronounced clean and the
school of Hillel pronounced unclean, and so. with respect to tithes.”

The final decision arrived at on this special controversy between
the two schools as regards the Books of Koheleth and the Song of
Songs, was, therefore, according to the account of Ben ‘Azzai, that the
validity of the rule DY NX PRood ΦΡῚΡΠ 33 93 was acknowledged
to include these books as well as the other books of the Hagio-
grapha.

Another important passage in the Talmud referring to this con-
troversy is that in AZegi/la, 7 a.

1 See A. Geiger, Urschrift und Uebersetaungen der Bibel, p. 398. R. Akiba
also says (in Zosephta Sanhed. c. 12), ‘‘he who sings the Song of Songs at a
drinking festival, and so makes_it an ordinary song, has no part in the world to
come,”

On the Floly Scriptures defiling the hands. 473

“Rabbi Jehudah [the editor of the Mishna] said, says Samuel [ben
Manasseh, his contemporary] that Esther does not defile the hands.1
Did Samuel intend to say that Esther was not spoken in the Holy
Ghost (MONI ΡΠ ΠῚ 2) But Samuel says, yes, Esther was
spoken in the Holy Ghost. It was spoken [thus] to be read [in the
public services on the feast of Purim], and it was not spoken that it
should be written down (203°) 77782 NDI), Rabbi Me’ir says that
Koheleth does not defile the hands, and that the dispute is about
Koheleth. Rabbi Simeon says that Koheleth is one of the lax
points of the school of Shammai, and one of the rigid points of
the school of Hillel, but that Ruth, and the Song of Songs, and
Esther defile the hands. But he [Samuel] says (the same) as Rabbi
Joshua has taught (namely, with regard to the public reading οἱ
Esther]. R. Simeon ben Manasseh says: Koheleth does not defile
the hands, because its wisdom is that of Solomon [2.6. it was only
such wisdom as belonged to Solomon as a man, not as an inspired
writer]. They said to him [1.6. to R. Simeon, in answer to this objec-
tion], Is this (Koheleth) the only book which he (Solomon) spoke ?
And is it not already said [1 Kings iv. 12] ‘and he spoke 3,000
proverbs,’ and he [Solomon] says ‘add not to his [God's] words’
[Prov. xxx. 6]. Wherein lies then the proof? for if you would say
right, he spoke much; had he wished it would have been written
down, even much; had he wished it would not have been written
down [hence it is argued it is incorrect to regard Koheleth as merely
an accidentally written monument of Solomon’s human wisdom, for
that idea is refuted by the verse quoted], come, hear! ‘add not to
his words’ [by which saying Solomon was considered to have ex-
plained his own proverbs as Divine words’ written by inspiration of
the Holy Ghost]. Rabbi Eliezer taught, saying, Esther was spoken
in the Holy Ghost, because it is said, ‘and the matter was made
known to Mordecai [Esther ii. 22] εἰς. ἢ

In what follows an attempt is made to prove that Esther must
have been written under Divine inspiration, on the ground that that
work not only relates known events, but also secret matters, which
could not have been known except by means of a knowledge higher
than human. Delitzsch observes that the nature of the controversy
respecting the Book of Esther was wholly different from that with

1 On this expression see Levy, Newtheb. W.B., s. v. RIOD.

474 Eexvecursus 11.

respect to the Song of Songs and Koheleth. With regard to the
Book of Esther, no doubt was entertained as to its inspiration,
though Rabbi Samuel maintained that the Book of Esther did not
defile the hands, on the supposition that that work was intended not
to be read in private, but to be listened to when recited in the public
services on the feast of Purim.

The foregoing is in great part the working up of an article by
Prof. Franz Delitzsch on the subject, entitled ‘‘Talmudische
Studien,” published in the Zectschrift fiir lutherische Theol. u. Kirche,
herausgeg. von Dr. A. G. Rudelbach u. Dr. H. E. Fo Guericke, 15ter
Jahrgang, 1854. Leipzig: Dorffling u. Franke. The extracts from
the Talmud, are, however, given above at somewhat greater length,
together with a few additional observations.

EXCURSUS ΠΙ.
THE MEN OF THE GREAT SYNAGOGUE.

“THE Men of the Great Synagogue” form an important link in the
history of the Canon of the Old Testament.. They are, as we have
seen (pp. 453 ff.), mentioned in the tradition of the Talmud which
treats of the order and arrangement of the Sacred Books,—and also
as (p. 465) having taken an important part in removing the difficulties
connected with the Books of the Proverbs, Canticles, and Koheleth.
The principal works on the question of the Men of the Great
- Synagogue, in addition to those specially referred to in this Excursus,
are as follows: Joh. Eberh. Rau, Dvuatribe de Synagoga Magna,
Utrecht, 1727; C. Aurivillius, Dzssertationes (ed. by J. D. Michaelis),
Gotting. und Leipzig, 1790, pp. 139-160; Ant. Theod. Hartmann,
Die Verbindung des Alten Test. mit dem Neuen, Hamburg, 1831, pp
120-166; C. Taylor, Sayings of the Jewish Fathers, Excurs, 11.
According to tradition, the ‘ great Synagogue,” or “Council,” was
convened by Ezra, after the return from Babylon, for the purpose of
arranging the affairs connected with the Jewish Church and people.
Among the first members were Ezra and Zerubbabel, Joshua the
High Priest, Nehemiah, Mordecai (Ezra ii. 2; Neh. vii. 7), with
the prophets Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi. Elias Levita! main-
tained that the period during which “the Men of the Great Syna-
gogue” presided over the Jewish Church and the nation, did not
last more than forty years. This statement of Levita seems to
have been based on the opinion held by many of the Jews, that
Simon the Just, mentioned in the Treatise Aboth as among the last
of “the Men of the Great Synagogue” (pp. 9 ff.), was high priest in
the days of Alexander the Great. Hence, ignorant of the long
period which intervened between the time of Ezra and Alexander,
they imagined that the visit of the latter monarch to Jerusalem took
See his Massoreth ha-Massoreth, edited by Ginsburg, pp. τοῦ ff. (London : Long-

mans, 1867).
475

476 , Lxcursus 111.

place forty years after the erection of the Second Temple (see
Buxtorf's Tiberias, p. 92). Later scholars have, however, pointed
out that the Great Synagogue, if its existence be regarded as an
historical fact, must have lasted at least two hundred years.

“The Men of the Great Synagogue,” according to the Jewish tra-
dition, performed many important services for the Jewish Church and
nation. To them is ascribed the closing of the Old Testament canon
and the settlement of the text handed down to us by the Jewish
Church. The statements of Elias Levita on these points were, for a
long time, accepted by scholars of all shades of opinion, Jewish,
Roman Catholic, and Protestant, as indisputable facts of history.
But the rise of the critical school has subjected all such statements
to a rigid examination, and the whole story of “the Men of the
Great Synagogue,” and their work, was declared fabulous by some
scholars in the last century, such as Franz Buddzus and J. Ὁ.
Michaelis, as well as by later critics, such as de Wette and Bleek.
Budde of Halle attached peculiar importance to the fact that no
mention of such a body is made in the apocryphal Books of Ezra,
or in the works of Josephus. But little weight is to be assigned
to the silence of Josephus, as such a point scarcely comes within
the scope of his history, Prof. Kuenen, of Leyden, notes that
“the Great Synagogue” is not alluded to in 1 Macc., though the
writer speaks of a great assembly (συναγωγὴ μεγάλη) of the priests
and people and rulers of the nation and the elders of the land
(1 Mace. xiv. 28)—which, however, was a very different assembly
from that spoken of in the Talmud. Nor do any other books of
the Old Test. Apocrypha refer to the Great Synagogue of which the
‘Talmud speaks. It may be well to observe that the Hebrew
expression rendered in 1 Mace. by the Greek συναγωγή would be, as
Kuenen observes, ΠῚ), or bap, and not 133, which latter is the term
used in the expression, “the Great Synagogue.” The word συναγωγή,
which occurs frequently in the LXX. in the meaning of a collection or
gathering of any kind, does not.occur there in the sense it afterwards
assumes in the New Test. It is used in the signification of “ con-
gregation ” in Sirach i. 30; iv. 7.

Kuenen’s views have been endorsed by Prof. W. Robertson
Smith,! who maintains that “the whole idea that there ever was a
body called the Great Synagogue holding rule in the Jewish nation is

! See the notes on p. 6.-

The Men of the Great Synagogue. 477

pure fiction,” and that the legend can be traced back to the account
in the Book of Nehemiah of the great assembly there recorded as
being been convened in Jerusalem. Kuenén’s theory is based to a
considerable extent on the articles of Nachman Krochmal, in the
Hebrew journal, Kerem Chemed (see note 2 on p. 82), The Great

Synagogue ¢ndyan nDI>) according to Kuenen is to be identified

with the great assembly (m3 nbap) convoked by Nehemiah with
the object of suppressing the usury under which the poorer Jews
groaned (Neh. v. 7), or with the greater convocation convened by
Ezra in order to induce the Jews to put away the strange wives.
(Ezra x. 7 ff), or with that general assembly of the returned exiles of
Israel mentioned in Neh. ix. and x., at which a solemn covenant
was'signed. In both the latter cases, however, no expression similar
to “the great synagogue” occurs in the narratives of Ezra and
Nehemiah, The solemn supplication and covenant recorded in
Neh. ix. 5-38 are indeed frequently referred to as having been drawn
up by “the Men of the Great Synagogue.” Kuenen cites a passage
from the Midrash Tanchuma [fol. 19 a, on Exod. i. τ, p. 162 of the
Stettin ed.] where it is said that “the Men of the Great Synagogue
came and said let them praise [comp. Neh. xi. 17] the name of
Thy glory which is exalted above all blessing and praise.” In this
quotation the reference to Neh. ix. 5 is unmistakably clear. The
words of Neh. ix. 6 are ascribed in the Midrash Bereshith to “the
Men of the Great Synagogue,” and treated as an explanation of
Gen. i. 17. ‘The Men of the Great Synagogue” are similarly said
(Bereshith Rabba, § \xxxvili. on chap. xxxil. 27, 28) to have called
the patriarch by the name of Abram instead of Abraham, where
reference is made to Neh. ix. 7. The expression used in the prayer
in Neh. ix. 18, “they wrought great provocations,” is said to have
been an interpretation of Exod. xxxii. 8 by “ the Men of the Great
Synagogue” (Shemoth Rabba, ὃ xli.on Exod. xxxi. 18). Similarly
the words made use of in Deut. x. 17, “the great God, mighty and
terrible,” which recur again only in Neh. ix. 32, are said three times
in the Babylonian Talmud, and twice in the Jerusalem Talmud, to
have been formulas of prayer adopted by “the Men of the Great
Synagogue.”} So also in the Midrash Shemoth, ὃ li. (on Exod.

1 Talm. Babli, Berach. 33 ὁ, Megilla 25 a, Foma 69 ὁ, and in the Jerus.
Talm, Berach, vii. 4, Afegilla i. 5.

478 Lexcursus IIT.

xxxviii, 21), the confession of Nehemiah (chap. i. 7) is quoted as
that of ‘the Men of the Great Synagogue.”

All that is clearly proved by these quotations is that Ezra, Nehe-
miah, and their colleagues, were reckoned among the number of
those belonging to the body thus designated. This, however, is part
and parcel of the tradition itself, But the passages do not prove
more than this, which is admitted on all sides.

The Great Synagogue is sometimes said to have consisted of 120
members, at other times of 85 only. In d¢egi//a, 17 6, and the
Jerusalem Berachoth, ii. 4, the former number is mentioned ; while
the latter number is that given in the Jerus. AZeg7//a, i, 5, and in the
Midrash on Ruth (§ 3, on chap. ii. 4; the number 84 occurs in
the Warsaw edit.) Kuenen points out that these numbers also have
been derived from the records preserved in Neh. viiii-x. Eighty-four
names of persons are mentioned in Neh. x. 2-28, as having sealed
or subscribed their names to the solemn covenant there spoken of.
The number 120 is made up by adding: together the 102 heads
of the houses of the fathers, Ezra il. 2-59, with the 15 additional
names mentioned in Ezra viii. 1-14, plus Haggai, Zechariah, and
Ezra, the latter being identified with Malachi by many of the Jews.
Or to the number 84 in Neh. x. 2-28, add the 33 names of the com-
panions of Ezra and the Levites given in Neh. viii. 4, 7, and ix. 4, 5,
who with the three prophets, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi, men-
tioned in Ezra y. 1, make up 120.!

Dr. M. Heidenheim has treated this matter very fully in his article
on, the Origin of the Seventy Elders.2 We need not here discuss the
mode in which Heidenheim explains the repetition of certain names
in the lists given in the Book of Ezra, inasmuch as our object here is
merely to point out the source from whence the Talmudists derived
the special numbers, and not the historical correctness of that tradi-
tion, The numbers mentioned in connexion with “the Men of the

1 These numbers vary slightly. Instead of 84 as in the Hebrew in Neh. x,
83 names occur in the LXX. The number of the names in Neh, viii. and ix. is
sometimes reckoned at 35, and at other times at 34. In Neh. x. 10 it has been
supposed that the repetition of the copula (UW/}) renders it probable that a
name has there fallen out, or by others that the name of Ezra isto be added. See
also Herzfeld, Gesch. d. Volkes Israel, vol, ii, p. 3816

2 See his essay, “ Ueber die Entstehung der 70 Aeltesten und Rechtfertigung
meiner Ansicht iiber die Synagoga Magna,” in his Deutsche Vierteljahrsschrift,
Land ii. Gotha, 1875.

The Men of the Great Synagogue. 479

Great Synagogue” may be admitted to be fictitious without the whole
story of the existence of the body, which included all the leading
teachers of the Law from Ezra to Simon the Just, being relegated to
the realms of fable. The assembly spoken of in the Books of Ezra
and Nehemiah was convened not for the purpose of making new
laws, but simply to revive the practice of the ancient laws of Moses.
“The Men of the Great Synagogue ” are, on the other hand, said in
the Talmud to have enacted laws relative to matters both of religious
worship and of ordinary life (Sawfedrin, fol. 104 ὁ). Kuenen, of
course, would maintain that the latter statement is but a legendary
amplification of the former history.

In maintaining the Great Synagogue and the Great Convocation
to be identical, and in arguing that the statements of the Talmud
and Midrash as to the former are simply legendary accretions to the
latter story, Kuenen and Robertson Smith attach considerable im-
portance to a passage in the Midrash on Ruth, which contains an
exposition of the clause, “and behold Boaz came from Bethlehem ”
(Ruth ii. 4). The Midrash says: “Three things they decided in the
lower court of judgment, and they agreed with them in the upper
court of judgment; and these were: τ. to salute in the Name (of the
Lorp); 2. (to receive) the Megillath (or the Book of) Esther ; and 3.
(to reinstitute) tithes.” The authority on which these decisions were
arrived at is then set forth. It is only necessary here to notice the
third. “Tithes. On what authority? Rabbi Berachiah in the name
of R. Krizpa (says) : they made known the sin (in the matter) of heave-
offerings and tithes. Shimon bar-Abba in the name of R. Jochanan
says: when they [Ezra and his colleagues] made it known they [the
people] were dismissed [Neh. viii. 8-13], and they declared them-
selves guilty by their lamentations [Neh. ix. 1, 2]. What did the
Men of the Great Synagogue do? They wrote a book [containing
the solemn covenant with God], and they spread it out in the court
(of the temple), and in the morning they stood up, and found it
sealed. ‘This is that which is written, ‘avd for all this we make a
sure covenant, and write it, and upon the sealed document’ [D\NNA ὅν),
in the sing. Neh. x. 1, A.V. ix. 38]. One verse says, ‘and upon the
sealed document’ (sing. Neh. x. r], and another verse is ‘and upon the
sealed documents’ [plural, ΠῚ ΠΠΠ by, verse 2]. Why is it only

pinnn dy {in the first passage]? This is the upper house of judg-

480 Exxcursus 111].

ment [which agreed to the covenant]. And why 5%1nnA 29} [plural
in the second]? This is the lower house of judgment ?”

We have quoted this passage at greater length than given in the
essay of Kuenen or in the work of Robertson Smith,! and have
inserted a few explanatory remarks, in order that its import may be
the better understood. But all that can be proved thereby is that
Ezra and his colleagues, being according to the tradition the first
members of the Great Synagogue, are referred to under the designa-
tion of “the Men of the Great Synagogue.” There is nothing what-
ever unnatural in this fact, which, as already noticed, has never been
called in question. But, though the acts of Ezra, Nehemiah, and their
co-workers in the restoration of the Jewish Church and polity are often
cited as acts of “the Men of the Great Synagogue,” many other
works are referred to as those of the Men of the Great Synagogue
which must have been executed in the period previous to the Grecian
conquest, and could not have been performed by Ezra and his col-
leagues.

It has always been regarded as a fact that the formation of the
body known in later times by the name of “the Men of the Great
Synagogue” is recorded in Ezra x. 16. ‘The chief,” or “heads of
the fathers,” in that passage and in Neh. xii. 22, are identical with
the “rulers” or “princes of the people,” spoken of in Neh. xi. 1.
The prophets Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi are sometimes classed
among “the Men of the Great Synagogue,” and other “ prophets”
are said to have belonged to that body; whereas at other times (as in
Aboth, i. 1) “the Men of the Great Synagogue” are spoken of as
having received the Scriptures from the prophets, in which latter
case, of course, the later members of the body, such as Simon the
Just, are referred to (see p. 486).

The commission granted by Artaxerxes empowered Ezra to appoint
magistrates and judges to judge in the districts of Judeea (Ezra vii.
25). According to Talmud Babli (Sanhedrin, 104 6), the Men of
the Great Synagogue appointed both instructors of the young and
judges of the people. The statement corresponds well with Bloch’s
interpretation of Adotk 1. 1 (see p. 466). ‘The judges of that day
had not merely to administer the law, but, under the circumstances
of the times, in many cases virtually to enact the law. Hence it was
a correct instinct on the part of the early Jewish teachers to ascribe

1 See notes on p. 6.

The Men of the Great Synagogue. 481

the latter work not merely to Ezra and the men of his day, but to
“the Men of the Great Synagogue,” including under that term not
only the contemporaries of Ezra, but those also who succeeded them
in office and authority,

The Jews of that period were not left without regular government ;
and the “heads of the people,” or “the Men of the Great Syna-
gogue,” in that and the succeeding ages must have exercised a mixed
civil and ecclesiastical authority. It is highly probable, as Bloch
argues, that they definitely appointed the three daily services or
times of prayer, in accordance with the pious habits of the Psalmist
(Ps. lv. 18) and the practice of Daniel (Dan. vi. 17),—a practice no
doubt derived from earlier antiquity. The tradition that traces back
to the same period the settlement or re-institution of set forms of
prayer, is not to be regarded as unhistorical, although it is impossible
exactly to point out the liturgy of that day. The form of prayer,
however, comprehended in all probability the “ Hear, O Israel”
(1 Ὁ yrow Deut. vii 4-9) and the Decalogue (Berachoth, 12a).
The opening of the first treatise of the Talmud, namely, Berachoth,
treats of the time when the former prayer ought to be used. Bloch
(Studien, p. 114) notices that the “ eulogies” which precede and
follow the reading of this prayer, and which comprehend some of
“the finest pearls of the Jewish liturgy,” as well as those used at the
opening and close of the services of the Sabbath and holy days,
are distinctly ascribed to “the Men of the Great Synagogue” (Bera-
choth, 33 a; Pesach. 117 a; Megilla, 17 ὁ). Those, he remarks,
who doubt this fact can never have read the prayers in question.
“Not only their brevity, and purity of language, but even their con-
tents, and many of their peculiar expressions, if one only has the
ancient readings before him, point back to the Persian period.”

To adduce the proofs cited in support of this statement would
require a more lengthened discussion than we can here afford. The
blessing used by the priests when they changed the watches in the
Temple, namely, ‘‘ He whose Name dwells in this house cause love
and brotherhood and peace and friendship to abide between you,”
must have been composed at a time long prior to the destruction of
the Temple. The magnificent eulogy of Simon the high priest, the
last'of “the Men of the Great Synagogue” (see p. 36), in Sirach L,
makes use of expressions which prove that the liturgical service of
the Jewish Church was at that early period fully established in all its

482 Excursus (11.

grandeur and beauty. This corresponds with the statements made
in the Talmud, with respect to at least a portion of the work per-
formed by “the Men of the Great Synagogue.” ‘To them also is
ascribed in the Talmud (dZegi//., 17 4), the composition of the eighteen
benedictions still in use in the ordinary Morning Prayer of the
Jews. It is highly probable, as Krochmal, Bloch and others think,
that the selection of the Psalms for liturgical purposes belongs to
the same period! Bloch calls attention to the fact that Graetz in-
terprets the warning of Ben Sira (Sirach vii. 14) as directed against
an attempt made in his day to alter the ancient forms of prayer,
which were distinguished not only for their purity of diction, but also
for their brevity.

The Men of the Great Synagogue, according to Berach., 33 a,
ordained for Israel forms of blessing and prayer, of consecration and
of benediction at the conclusion of the Sabbath and holy days
(mipram merap mibpny 393), They are likewise said to have
prohibited the unnecessary heaping up of epithets in addressing the
Almighty in prayer (Berach., 33 6; comp: Pesachim, 117 a). In
the latter place reference is made to the special epithets employed
in Neh. ix. 32. It is quite in accordance with Jewish usage that
advantage should be taken of such an opportunity to cite in support
of this prohibition an incident recorded in the Sacred Writings, and
it is hypercriticism to regard the reference there made as another
proof of the identity of the Great Synagogue with the Great Assembly
mentioned in the Book of Nehemiah.

Many things undoubtedly are ascribed to Ezra and “the Men of
the Great Synagogue,” which were the work of scholars of a far later
era. Such are, for instance, the marginal readings (the K’ri) ascribed
to that early period even by Elias Levita ; also ‘‘ the corrections of the
scribes” (the BBD }}PN) attributed to the Great Synagogue by the
Midrash Tanchuma (fol. 26 a@).2 The vocalization and accentuation
of the Hebrew Scriptures Elias Levita saw clearly enough was the
work of scholars in the early centuries of the Christian era, But
the adoption of the square Aramaic alphabet in place of the ancient
alphabet, which was akin to the Phoenician and which in a more

1 J. S. Bloch (Studien, p. 115) refers also to Pesachim, 11 a, 136a3 Berach.,
332; Succa, 384; and Sofa, 30d.

2 See on the latter, Strack’s Proleg. Crit, in Vet. Test. Heb., p. 87 ; Geiger
Orschrift, pp. 309 ff. ; and my Bampton Lectures on Zechariah, p. 541.

The Men of the Great Synagogue. 483

embellished shape is preserved in the Samaritan, must have been the
work of scholars several centuries before the Christian era. The
ancient character still kept its place on the'coins of the Maccabean
period, and may have been employed in ordinary writing, but the use
of the new alphabet in the copies of the Sacred Scriptures was pro-
bably much earlier. Such changes are not, introduced all at once,
and meet generally with considerable opposition. Bloch has called
attention to the fact that in later days the square alphabet was
regarded as the more ancient, and that the assertion was made that
the really older alphabet with its unsightly forms was a Divine
punishment from which Israel was delivered in the days. of Ezra.
The directions that the Law should be written in the Assyrian
character (Zebachim, 62 a), and the prohibition to use for that pur-
pose the older alphabet, called contemptuously the “Y", must have
been promulgated in a very early era. The most honourable title
given to Ezra in his book, besides that of “priest,” was that he
was “‘a ready scribe in the Law of Moses” (Ezra vii. 6), or, as he
was styled by Artaxerxes, ‘‘a scribe of the Law of the God-of heaven”
(ch. vii. 21), and one of the most important works of the members
of the Great Synagogue must (even if no tradition could be adduced
on the point) have been the copying out of the Sacred Writings
from the few copies in the hands of the people, and multiplying
the same throughout the land. The scribes would naturally begin
with the books of the Law itself, and afterwards issue the other
sacred writings. According to Baba Bathra, 14 (see p. 453), they
“wrote Ezekiel, the Twelve Prophets, Daniel, and Esther,” which
may mean either that they committed these books for the first time
to writing, or that they first copied them out for general circulation.
A considerable number, if not all in later times, of the members
of the Great Synagogue must have been “scribes.” We are not
inclined to agree with Bloch’s idea that. they concerned them-
selves with compiling the prayers and inscriptions intended for the
door-posts and for phylacteries, Yet there.may be some historical
basis for the curious statement in Pesach., 50 ὦ (although it sayours
indeed of the legendary), given on the authority of R. Joshua ben
Levi, that the Men of the Great Synagogue ordained twenty-four
fasts, PX MwyND ρον wyNy μὰ» Mints prAN DAD ama dy
('2N\3, “on account of those who wrote books, prayers and Mezuzoth
(inscriptions for the door-posts) in order that they might not grow

484 Eixcursus 111.

rich, for if they were to grow rich they would not have written.”
The first beginnings at least of a Jewish Lectionary were settled in
their day (Afegilla, 31 δ; Jer. Megilla, i. 1), and they certainly insti-
tuted the Feast of Purim, and arranged the Book of Psalms as the
Hymn-Book of the Jewish Church. The beginning of a system of
schools for the young is naturally ascribed to them (Sanhedrin,
104 4). It is an interesting fact, whether historically correct or
not, that Baba Bathra, 21 ὦ, 22 a, ascribes to Ezra a peculiar di-
rection, that no one should attempt to prevent a teacher of children
from opening a school in any district on the plea that other schools
were in existence, inasmuch as 730 137N DMD NSP, “ the emula-
tion of scribes increases wisdom.”

If it be enquired why did not the Great Synagogue, if its members
were so active and their work so important, leave behind them some
distinct record of their actions? the answer is easy. The fact is,
as Bloch has pointed out (Studien, p. 120) that it was strictly for-
bidden to commit to writing religious laws and ordinances not
contained in the Scriptures. All such laws and ordinances were
taught by word of mouth. We have before referred to the fact (see
p. 456) that even in later days it was long before such a scruple was
overcome. The Talmud itself, with its voluminous directions and
interpretations, was only by degrees committed to writing. How
keenly the teachers of an earlier period felt’ on this question appears
from the saying, 71n Π 5 mon ΔΙῚ, “he who writes down the
ordinances ts like one who burns the Law.” The result of all this is
patent. Not one of the great Rabbis, from the days of Simon the
Just till long after the period of Hillel and Shammai, left behind
him any written memorials of his learning. Their teaching was oral,
and their decisions on the most difficult matters were intrusted only
to the memory of faithful disciples. Very: many of their precious
sayings, which passed for ages from mouth to mouth, are treasured
up in the treatises of the Talmud. But though they did not actu-
ally write books, and though some of the traditions concerning them
may be legendary, no one has yet been found hardy enough to main-
tain that the account of their words and actions contained in the
Talmuds and Midrashim is in the main to be regarded as fabulous.
We consider it almost equally rash and uncritical to question the
existence and authority exercised by “the Men of the Great Syna-
gogue.”

The Men of the Great Synagogue. 485

Closely connected with this question is that concerning the institu
tion of the Sanhedrin, discussed also by Kuenen in an earlier article.*
Dr. David Hoffmann, Docent in the Rabbinical Seminary in Berlin,
has in a recent essay, in which he reviews the theory put forward
by the Dutch Professor,? ably pointed out that the existence of a
supreme court of justice in Israel prior to the Babylonish captivity
is placed beyond doubt by the statements of Deut. xvii. 8 ff. and
2 Chron. xix., and moreover, that, according to the Jewish tradition
(noticed in Josephus and the Talmud), a body exercising similar
authority was in active existence from the time of Moses down to
the final overthrow of the Jewish polity by the Romans, and even
long after that event.

According to Kuenen, the Jewish Council known commonly under
the Hebraized name of the Sanhedrin (συνέδριον) did not exist prior
to the Greek period (B.c. 330), and was first. known by the name of
the Gerusia (γερουσία) or Senate. His arguments appear to be mainly
drawn from the supposed silence of Ezra and Nehemiah on the
point, and from the fact that Josephus does not mention such a body
when describing the reception of Alexander the Great (Antiz., xi.
8, 5), while he makes mention of “Senate” when narrating the
reception of Antiochus III., which occurred about a century after-
wards (Antig., xii. 3, 3). It must not be forgotten, however, that
Josephus speaks of the high priest as having been accompanied on
the former occasion by the priests and the multitude of the citizens
(μετὰ τῶν ἱερέων καὶ τοῦ πολιτικοῦ πλήθους). In opposition to the
idea expressed by Jost, Graetz and others, Kuenen maintains that
the statements of the New Test. and Josephus, which speak of the
Sanhedrin as an aristocratic body, do not harmonize with those of
the Talmud, according to which the Sanhedrin was composed mainly
of Doctors of the Law, admitted to that body solely on account of
{πεῖς learning, and presided over by two distinguished Doctors of the
Law, the President of the body being styled Nasi, or “ Prince,” and
the Vice-President, Ab-Beth-Din, “ Father of the House of Judgment.”

Hoffmann maintains that there is no real contradiction between

1 Over de Samenstelling van het Sanhedrin in the Verslagen en Mededeelingen
der Koninklijke Akademie van IWetenschappen, Afdeeling Letterkunde x. .
Amsterdam: 1866.

2 Der oberste Gerichtshof in der Stadt des Hreiligthums in the Fahres-Bericht des
Rabbiner-Seminars fir das orthodoxe Fudenthum pro 5638 (1877-1878). Berlin.

486 Excursus 111.

the statements of the Greek and the Talmudic authorities referred to.
The fact of noble birth had, indeed, considerable influence in pro-
curing admission to the Sanhedrin, and this point is not gainsaid in
the Talmud. But an acquaintance with the laws and ordinances
such as was required by the terms of Ezra’s commission (Ezra vil.
25, 26), and is alluded to in the Book of Sirach (chap. xliv. 4 ff,
xxxvill. 24 to xxxix. 11), was primarily required. Hoffmann points
out at considerable length that the historical character of the
Talmudic accounts respecting the Nasi and the Ab-Beth-Din ought
not reasonably to be doubted. These officials of the body are often
referred to as “the pairs” (M\a\1), They seem indeed to have been
first appointed about B.c. 170, for the chiefs of the Sanhedrin, from
Jose ben Jo‘ezer and Jose ben Jochanan to Hillel and Shammai
(B.c, 170-30) are known by that appellation. These “ Pairs” are
said in Feah, ii. 6, to have been the link immediately following
“the prophets” in the chain of tradition, which statement Kuenen
adduces in order to strengthen his argument as to the legendary
character of “the Men of the Great Synagogue.” But, under the
designation “ prophets,” in PeaA, ii. 6, “the Men of the Great
Synagogue” (mentioned in Adozh, i. 1 as the link which followed
“the prophets ”) seem to have been included.! For the succession
of “the prophets” had not ceased when “ the Great Synagogue” was
organized; but, on the contrary, prophets were among the most
conspicuous members of that body in the earlier period of its
existence. The decisions of the Sanhedrin during the time of “ the
pairs” are, according to Hoffmann, referred to as ordinances made
by “the pairs” themselves.

Hoffmann further argues that even in the Books of Ezra and
Nehemiah mention is made of a senate at Jerusalem under various
names (Ezra x. 8; vi. 7, 143; Neh. x. τ; xi. 1, etc.). The governing
body was then composed of priests and Levites under the headship
of the High Priest, and of Israelitish laymen under the headship ot
the Prince of the House of Judah. “The elders of the House of
Israel” were all probably “scribes” skilled in the Law like Ezra
himself (Ezra vii, 25). Such a body would naturally be renewed
from time to time, and the name of ‘the Great Synagogue” was

1 The Adboth of R. Nathan, 69 a, speaks of the Men of the Great Synagogue
as having derived the tradition from Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi.

The Men of the Great Synagogue. 487

given to it in later days, not only on account of the important work
it performed in the re-constitution and preservation of the Jewish
Church and State in troublous times, but also because its members
were originally more numerous than those of the Sanhedrin of a later
period, or even of the council of elders which occupied its place in
earlier and happier days! ‘Though we cannot narrate the history of
the disruption of the Great Synagogue, it is highly probable that after
the death of Simon the Just it was shattered by internal dissensions,
caused by the disposition of many men of position at that time to
yield to heathen customs which were then widely introduced into
Jewish national life owing to the intercourse with the Greeks. If the
eighteen Greek Psalms known as the Psalter of Solomon, the original
language of which was in all probability Hebrew, could be satisfac-
torily shown to belong to the Maccabean period, or to have been
composed shortly after that date, the fourth Psalm of that remark-
able collection, which speaks of the unholy and impure sinner ἐν
συνεδρίῳ (177 N13, or Syn 151), would well describe the character of
the men whose conduct broke up the early council, or of those who,
notwithstanding their ungodliness and sensuality, were during the
troubles of that day able to obtain seats in the later body. “The
Great Synagogue ” was broken up some years previous to the heroic
struggles of the Maccabees ; and after that era the governing body
of the Jewish Church was reorganised by Hyrkanus and termed the
Sanhedrin.

1 Dr. M. Heidenheim, in his interesting article before alluded to, has pointed
out that the reason why this council originally consisted of seventy elders was, that
the families and the “‘ captains” or ‘‘ princes ” of the tribes given in Num. i. 5 ff.
and in Num. xxvi. 7 ff., were exactly seventy. For Reuben 5, for Simeon 7, for
Gad 8, for Judah 6, for Issachar 5, for Zebulon 4, for Manasseh 9, for Ephraim 5,
for Benjamin 8, for Dan 2, for Asher 6, for Naphtali 5. Total 70. The reasons
why the numbers allotted to the several tribes varied so curiously can only be a
matter of pure conjecture.

EXRCURSUS ἵν.

GLOSSARY OF WORDS AND FORMS PECULIAR TO THE
BOOK OF KOHELFETH.

δι, GRAMMATICAL PECULIARITIES OF THE BOOK.

Tue following grammatical peculiarities in the Book of Koheleth
are specially worthy of notice as belonging mainly to the modern
period of the Hebrew language.

Verbs ΠΩ which occasionally in all periods of the language inter-
change forms with verbs ἢν (see Ges.-Kautzsch, ὃ 75, rem. 20-22),
are in the Mishna regularly inflected as. verbs nm, See Geiger,
Lehrb. sur Sprache der Mishna, p. 46. Compare in Koheleth xyi
fem. part. for ass’, or Ny, chap. x. 53 ΝΥ for ΥΩ, chap. vii,
26; SOM and NYIN, chap. viii. 12; ix. 18, and also according to the
ἡ δεν in chap. ix. 2; i. 26, dioustst in these two latter passages the
regular form 8YiN occurs in the common text, which according to
the Masora ought only to appear in chap.vii.26. The form &3t" for
m3’ occurs in chap. viii. x.

Attention has also been called by Delitzsch and others to the fact
that the use of the moods in Koheleth is more restricted. The
cohortative only occurs once, in chap. vii. 23; the jussive, which is
used in prohibitive clauses, such as chap. vii. 16, 17, 18; x. 4,
occurs elsewhere only in chap. v. 14; x. 20, and xii. 7. Other cases
have been cited by some scholars, namely 817° chap. xi. 3, and /S?
chap. xii. 5, but see our crit. comm. on these passages. The disuse
of the imperfect with vav conversive is still more significant, see
notes on chap, 1. 13, p. 317, chap. i. 17, p. 320. That construction
occurs only in three cases, chap. 1.17; iv. 1, 7, notwithstanding the fre-
quent use of the perfect with simple vav. Note also the way in which
the inf. absolute is employed in chap. iv. 2, 17. See pp. 349, 358.

The personal pronouns are used after the verb where no contrast
or emphasis can have been designed, thus, 8 follows the verb in

the first person in chap, i. 16; ii. 1, 11, 12, 13, 15, 18, 203 li. 17,
488

Grammatical Peculiarities. 489

183 iv. 1, 4,73 V. 173 vii. 255 viii, τς; and S47 in chap. ix. 15.
Delitzsch notices that the same peculiarity occurs in Hosea, but in
that case the personal pronoun precedes the verb, as for example,
Hosea viii. 13; xii. rz, So also in Ps, xxxix. 11; Ixxxii. 6, etc. In
one case *J8 in the nominative is preceded by 03 for emphasis, see
note on chap. ii. 14. In chap. ii. 15 ‘38 ὍΣ is the accusative, see
our note.

The frequent use of the participle in the book, and the employ-
ment of the personal pronouns after the participle to indicate the
subject, is a noteworthy characteristic of the book. So also is the
use of verbal adjectives with the pronouns. See note on chap. i. 5.

So likewise the mode in which the demonstrative ΠῚ is employed is
similar to the Mishna, and the fact that the feminine used in the
book is 11, Mishnaic 1, See note on chap. ii. 2. The employment
of YM in chap i. g is a sign of a late period; and the use of ΠΡ is
peculiar. See note on chap. ii. 12.

As marks of peculiarity of style the frequent employment of t®
may be noted (chap. i. 103 ii. 13, 213 iv. 8; v. 125 vi. a, 11, etc);
the common use of the personal pronouns in place of the substantive
verb, asin chap. i. 5, 7, 10; iii. 18; v. 18, etc., and the more constant
use of particles such as D3, 3, 5, WN, WWND, etc. The frequency with
which these occur is significant of the late period of the writer,
though they are by no means exclusively found in the later Hebrew.
We do not adduce here the expressions necessitated by the subject
matter of the book itself, as to do so would be a petitio principit.

Other instances will be found given in the commentary, all point-
ing towards the conclusion arrived at by the critical school, namely,
that the work was composed at a period far later than that of
Solomon.

The Glossary which follows is, with the exception of the words
and clauses within brackets and the references to our commentary,
a translation of Delitzsch’s “ List of Hapaxlegomena and of words
and forms in the Book of Koheleth indicative of a later period of the
language.” I had originally intended to give a glossary only based
on that of Delitzsch, but on consideration I have considered it better
simply to translate Delitzsch’s list, which is only partially and very im-
perfectly given in the English translation of his work (see ἢ, 2 on
p-rrg). But I have included in it many remarks which in the original
German are not to be found in the Glossary but in the work itself.

490 Excursus IV.

§ 2. GLossary OF WorRDS AND Forms.
[738. See note on chap. iii. 6.]

ΣΝ, caper, or caperberry, the flower-buds ot the caper plant,
only chap. xii. 5. See notes pp: 263, 264. Compare AZa‘seroth,
iv. 6; Berachoth, 36 a, where a distinction is made between
NNVAN, the caperberries, and \'O"5?P the husks of the fruit of the

caper. [Note the allusion to the caper: (aby) on p. 23.]
DIN, man, opposed to MN, only chap. vii. 28.

Iw. Zo weigh, only in chap. xii. 9. Not: used in this sense in
Talmudic [Buxtorf notes that the pual {!® is used in the sense
of ¢rutinari, probari apud arithmeticos : 127 ΠῚ WIS, probabitur
hee species. The writers alluded to by Buxtorf are those of the
middle ages, but their usage is unimportant in considering the
significance of the term in earlier Rabbinic].

‘8, 1 2 chap. v. τό. O'S, woe fo him / chap. iv. το, see crit. comm.
instead of the older ‘8 Comp. ‘7 Ezek. ii. 10, as pre ἝΝ,
Shemoth Rabba, § 46. WANDS, Ah, how evil! Targ. Jer. on
Lev. xxvi. 29, DNDN, Ah, heaven! Rosh ha-shana, tga. VV 8,
Alas! the meek one! Berachoth, 6 b, or compare YY 7, San-
hedrin, 11 a.

+N, if, chap. vi. 6, Esth. vil. 4; compounded of O8 (1) and % (xd
read xd Ezek. iil. 6), Targ, Deut. xxxii. 29 = Heb. 2, common

in the Mishna, eg., Aaccoth, i. το, PIMDI WN ὯΝ if we had
been in the Sanhedrin.

DY}DN, see note on chap. vii. 26.

NiBDN, in the phrase MADY ‘bya [see p. 98 note, p. 99, pp. 102, 103]
only in chap. xii. 11, as in Sanhedrin, 12 «, of those assembled
together to arrange the calendar. See Jer. Sanhedrin, x. 28 a,
[quoted in note 1, p. 103]. In his crit, remarks on the text
Delitzsch notes as follows: MIBDX has daghesh in the ® like
DSDNA, 2 Chron. xxxvi. 15; ‘BONI, Neh. xii. 15. Menahem
ben-Saruk in his Lexicon, under 408, states this distinctly ; the
Masora, on the contrary, affixes the note md [16.. not elsewhere),
to all the three forms. ‘The sing. ig TBDN, like M738, from
TIN,

Glossary of Words and Forms. 491

bna, to hasten, in this sense found only in chap. v. 1; vii. 9, so hiphil
Esther vi. 14; compare the transitive use-of the piel, Esth, ii. 9,
like Targ. on3 (= bnans) and soma, haste.

"93, 40 search out, only chap. ix. 1; compare the Talmudic 113 5y,
pure, thoroughly free from faults and failures,

NIN3, rhe period of youth, only chap. xi. 9; xii. 1; comp. 7739,
Num. xi. 28.

283,40 cease, to be inactive, chap. xii. 3, elsewhere only in the Chaldee
of the Book of Ezra, common in the Mishna, eg. Adoth, i. 5,
mn 37D 5015, ceasing from the study of the Law (see note,
p. 245]. LXX. chap. xii. 3, ἤργησαν = depyot ἐγενήθησαν.

DAY ΓΞ, the eternal house (comp. Ezek. xxvi. 20), 2.6. the grave, chap.
xii, 5 [see p. 201] as Zosefta Berachoth, iu. ody maa ὍΘΙ
WI ONIN AS, ke who delivers the farewell address at a cemetery
does not close with the blessing. [Compare the phrase ΠΡΌΣ
mwxn moby oad in the first line of the Aden inscription (A.D.
718) in Plate xxix. of Zhe Oriental Series of Facsimiles of An-
cient MSS., edited for the Paleeographical Society by Prof. Wm.
Wright, noticed also by M. A. Levy, Zeitschrift der D. M. G.
xxi. pp. 156-160.] Comp. bby nea, Targ. Isaiah xiv. 18; xlii.
11 [see crit. comm. on chap xii. 5, pp. 436, 437}.

123, then, thus, chap. viii. 10; Esth. iv. τό," elsewhere only in the
Targum, as Isaiah xvi. 5, OW ΔῸΣ PRY Seb NWI 123, then
will the Messiah of Israel erect his throne in goodness.

won bya, one who has a peculiar tongue by which he can charm
serpents, chap. x. 11, comp. W. 1, a corpulent person,
Berachoth, 13.6; 2) Sys, one who 1s manly, Bechoroth, vii. § ; bya
DDN, a man with a fine nose, i.e. holding his head (nose) high,
Taanith, 19 α.

“Ai, 40 strain, to apply one's strength to a thing, only in chap. x. τὸ ;
in other passages it means Ζ20 make strong.

Yr, 272, only in chap. x. 8 [In use both in Chald., Syr. and Arab,
GOoe-
youd

N34, see under Ὁ.

Mn, what will be, zc. whatis the result, chap. ii, 22, as in the Mishna,
eg. Shabbath, vi. 6; Erubin,i. 10; Jebamoth, xv. 2, of that which
actually occurs, what happens according to one’s experience,
what usually happens.

492 χανε LY.

nipoin and nsdn, folly, only found in Koheleth, see note on chap.
1. 14%
1731, see note on chap. i. 11,
ΤΥ, dime, chap. iii. 1; Neh. ii. 6; Esth. ix. 27, 31, elsewhere only in
Biblical Chaldee; along with ΠΡΟ ὥρα, the usual word in the
Mishna for καιρός and χρόνος. See note on chap. iil. 1.

npin, fem, part, kal of nbn, chap, v, 12, 15, the niphal participle is
used in Isa. xvii. 115 Jer. x. 19; Nah. iii, 19; xiv. 17.

OMIM [a son of nobles, chap. x. 17, see p. 220], one free born (liber,
opposed to 732, @ s/ave), the usual word in the Talmud [}")N *33,
free persons, Baba kam., 14 6], used of the owners of possessions,
like predium liberum, a@des libere in Roman law [ΠῚ Π 123 82),
Jarms free of mortgages, Baba kam., 14 ὁ). Compare 1, free-
dom, upon the coins struck during: the revolt against the
Romans.

WYN, outside of, except, only in chap. 11. 25 (Chald. "5 73, Syr.

-

ST εἰ \, }, common in the Mishna, e.g. Aféddoth, ii. 3, Sen nn

DOWN, outside (the steps of) the porch, VIP ΝΘ YAN, except the
gate of Nikanor.

WN, fo enjoy, chap. ii. 25. See note there. Generally used in Talm.

_ and Syr, of painful experiences, comp. Job xx. 2.

pin, strength, chap. x. 10 [see note there]. It means everywhere
else, also in Aram. (2h, xn}>*n), armies, except in Isaiah
xxx. 3, where it signifies opes, riches.

{MDN, @ loss, deficit, see note on chap. i. 15, p. 319.

VED, desire, matter, business, thing, chap. iii. 1, 173 v.73 villi, 6,
Comp. Isa. lviii. 3, 13. The original unweakened signification
is to be found in chap. v. 3; xli 1,10. ‘he weakening of the
original meaning, delight, pleasure, may have already begun early.
In the Book of Koheleth it has already proceeded as far as in
the language of the Mishna, eg. Afesc‘a, iv. 6, ΠῚ YSN 723,
how much does this cost ? or Berachoth, § a, rand YSN 31) DAS,
a man sells a thing to his fellow.

Hawn, reckoning, account, sing. chap. vii. 25, 273; 1x. τὸ; a well-
grounded knowledge based upon careful reckoning up of
matters ; 3 Π JN) is the Mishnaic for the N. 'T., λόγον ἀποδιδόναι.
Plural MiI3¢'n, machinations, “ devices,” chap. vii. 29, used also

Glossary of Words and Forms. 493

in 2 Chron. xxvii 15, but in the sense of machine bellice
[Gesenius compares the later Latin dgenia, “ engines,” from
which ingénieur, “engineer”]; but in Shadbath, 150 a, how-
ever, there occurs the expression similar to that in the Book of
Koheleth, namely, nawa javn> ani Ayn Sw ninawn, one may
make on the Sabbath calculations about a good work. ΣΦ ΠῚ ΚΝ
is the general Mishnaic expression for calculation, reckoning.
[The word is not to be explained with Grotius in chap, vii. 29,
as meaning “rastones ac causas multas cur a primeeva ista sim-
plicitate deflecterent.”

DANN, ¢errors, only chap. xii. 5. See note there.

MIND, mill, chap. xii. 4, comp. Hp, Lam. v. 13, a word foreign to the
language of the Mishna, but corresponding even with the old
ἘΠῚ, as the vulgar Arabic een and ον used in place
the older lay [See Eli Smith in Delitzsch’s /idisch-arabische
Poesien aus vormuhammedanischer Zeit (1874), p. 40].

WX Piel, to give wp (one’s heart) fo despair, only chap. ii. 20 [The
niphal occurs in several other passages].. The older language
uses the niphal in the sense of 20 give up hope; the Talmudic
uses the niphal and also a hithpael UN'M) (Kedim, xxvi. 8), and
also the piel ἐδ", AZezi‘a, 21 ὁ, from which it is apparent that
WN! (chap. ii. 20) is not to be regarded as a causative (like the
Arabic), but as a simple transitive after which 129 is to be sup-
plied. In place of wind, Delitzsch observes that vis with
pathach should be read as in the Biblia Rabb., the Mas. parva
according to MS., and in the St. Petersburg MS. [So also several
of the MSS. collated by Michaelis.]

ΠΡῚΝ, weariness, only chap. xii. 12.

Ini’, as participial adjective, what remains, the rest (comp. 1 Sam. xv.
15) =advantage, profit, chap. vi. 11; vii. 11, or preference, pre-
eminence, chap. vi. 8. As an adverb, more (comp. Esth. vi. 6),
exceedingly, too, chap. ti. 15; vil. 16: “YD, and moreover that,
chap. xi. 9 ; DID 10, and moreover more than that, chap. xii.
12. In Talmudic Hebrew 79” [in fem. 9}0V] is used in the
signification of superfiuous (Kiddushin, 24 6), and is common
[followed by 12] as an adverb in the signification of more or
more than, e.g. Chullin, 57 ὁ.

494 LExcursus 1V,

mp, beautiful, of that which is good and right, chap. iii, 11; v. 17,

as in Jerus. Pesachim, ix. 1 (Babl. Pesachim, 99 a): “ beautiful,”
r “ becoming (75°) is silence to the wise, how much more to
the fools !”

[ὄν See note on chap. vii. 18.]

HM, preference, advantage, chap. ii. 13 (twice); vil. 12 (synon. ann,
chap. ili. 19), more often, of real profit, chap. i. 3; ii. 113 i, 95
v.15; x. 10, preeminence and advantage, chap. v. 8; peculiar
to the Book of Koheleth, and borrowed in Rabbinic from it.
[See note on chap. i. 3.]

INN, together, alike, chap. xi. 6; Isa. Ixy. 25 ; Chron., Ezra, Neh.

Chald. 8703, Syr. iol, frequent in the language of the Mishna,
as INNS mon DSI TINA DX ASN, he who sees the room below and
the garret together, t.e. squints πὰ one eye, Bekhoroth, vii. 4.
Similarly ΠΝ, eg. Keilayim,i.9. It is also common in the
later language. So, in the last of “the eighteen benedictions,”
mea 9593 Wak 137A, bless us, our Lather, all of us together

123, size, length, as silva ong ago, chap. i. 10; 11. 12, τό; iii, 153
iv. 2; vi. το ; ix, 6,7; so generally in the Mishna; as nn 33
Dann, 7 have long ago perceived, Erubin, iv. 2, In Aram. more
frequent in the meaning of Zerhaps than in that of formerly.

WD, to be good, prosperous, chap. xi. 6 ; Esth, viii. 5; in the language
of the Mishna the common word for that which is ritually suit-
able, or legally admissible. The hiphil verbal noun 7¥'D5,
*setting-right, occurs only in chap, x. to. In the Mishna it is
the usual word for the arrangement according to the written
directions, e.g. of the firstfruits, of the tabernacle, of the festal
nosegay, in the heading of the Treatise | 3D of the making
“table to uncleanness. Compare Menachoth 48 6,137 2 PS
τ πα at won NOW, 2.6.) one draws no conclusion with
regard to a thing which is not set right according to the rule
from a thing which is set right according to the rule. 27 is
generally pronounced ¥’2J, but 27 is more correct.

IW, success, superiority, chap. ii, 21 ; iv. 4; advantage, chap. v. 10.
Only found in Koheleth.

29 {common in other books of Scripture, either with suffixes, or when
used with reference to a preceding noun, as Exod. xxvi. 9], used

Glossary of Words and Forms. 495

absolutely in the sense of ov/y in chap. vii. 29. Similarly, but
not exactly alike is Isa. xxvi. 13.
and, study [not preaching as Luther and Herzfeld], only found chap.

xii, 12, not Talmudic, from an, Arab. ce to gape, to long for,

Syr. Leo, vapor, from breathing out, exa/are. Connected in
meaning ἢ) (71373) [See note on chap. xii. 12].

)?, to accompany (elsewhere in kal in sense of 20 lend or borrow),
chap. viii. 15. The verb is used similarly in the Mishna, in
piel or hiphil, e.g. to accompany a guest, to accompany a traveller,
to accompany a corpse to the tomb, whence the saying, °S1)
maids, “he who accompanies a dead body, to him will one also
give the same honour,” Xethuboth, 72 a. So the noun mn,
company, OND) nd, the conducting of the dead to the tomb.

"19, see note on chap. ii. 8.

VID, knowledge, consciousness, συνείδησις, chap. x. 20, and elsewhere,
only in the Chronicles and in the Book of Daniel; Targum
YH. See note on chap. x. 20,

adn, pregnant, chap. xi. 5 only, as in the Mishna, e.g. Sebamoth,
xvi, I, mNdp mn’, “she was already pregnant on her departure.”
[So in Lat. plena, “ plena patris thalamis excedit,” Ovid, Afe‘am.,
x. 469. Soin Greek, πληροῦν yuvaixa.]

adn, messenger (angel) of priests, chap. v. 5 [see note there], comp.
Mal. ii. 7, in the sense of the later O° που (ΠῚ mou,
Kiddush, 23 6), delegate of God. Plural everywhere pombe (not
ppbyy, See Delitzsch, Dze Duscussion der Amtsfrage in
Mischna und Gemara in the Lutherische Zeitschrift, 1854, pp.
446-9.

12D2, poor, brought down, only chap. iv. 13 ; ix. 15, 16, compare,
however, 23D, poverty, Deut. viii. 9, and 12D, impoverished,
Isa, xl. 20.

ΓΛ, nails, chap. xii. 11 [see note], ze, NIU, Jer. x. 4, comp.

“Isa. xli. 73 τ Chron. xxii. 3; 2 Chron. iii 9. The word is
written with & in Koheleth, from which the Talmud takes
occasion to interpret MY, nails, in Jer. Sanhedrin, x. 1, as
ny, ordinances. ΙΝ

DY, few, chap. v. 1, ἃ plural which occurs elsewhere only in Ps.
εἶχ. 8. : ᾿

496 Excursus \V.

MPY, hap, accident (from MP, to meet, happen), is quidquid alicui
accidit (in the later philosophical terminology the accidens ; Gr.
Ven. συμβεβηκός), in Koheleth, as the context shows, that which
finally puts an end to life, the final event of death. More
frequently used in Koheleth than in any other book. See
especially chap. iii. 19, and note there.

yin9, race, only in chap. ix, 11. See note there.

Wh, to draw, to attract, chap. ii. 3 [see note there]. Compare the
expression aban 129, to entice the heart, Chagiga, 14 a, Sifri,
135 ὦ, ed. Friedmann.

nndyin, discharge, chap. vil. 8, different from Ps. Ixxviil. 49.

ya}. Hiphil construed with OY, to strike against any one, fo happen,
chap. νὴ]. 14, like Esth, ix. 26. Aram, ? 8012, e.g. Targ. Jerus.
Exod. xxxiii. 13.

303, to conduct oneself, to act, as in the language of the Mishna, eg.
Aboda sara, ill. 4, mos ow 13 aM DS, one against whom one

behaves as against a God, also 54 4, sim ΔῚΣ 137993 οὗν, the
world acts and proceeds according to its usual course. Comp.
Targ. Koh. x. 4, 2 O997 492 00", leave not thy good post
where thou wert accustomed to stand,

nn, vest, chap. vi. 5, rare [see note], as in the usual ΠῚ NN), Assyr.
nuh libbi. Sometimes a synonyme of 31D, as 8132 bur ΠῚ), 7
were better for him not to be born, Jer. Berachoth, i. 2. This bm
is common in place of Koheleth’s > nn,

yo, fo fix, to drive into, chap. xii. 11 (for which Isa. xxii. 23 has YA,
Mishnaic Y4?, Jer. Sanhedrin, x. 1), as Dan. xi. 45.

Sap, Hithpael, 0 drag oneself, only chap. xii. αὶ [see p. 260}.

HAD, end, chap. ili. 11; vii. 2; xii. τὰ: Joel il, 20; 2 Chron. xx. 16,
the later word which afterwards drove out of use the older
nm 58, which also occurs in Koheleth chap. vii. 8; χα. 13. So
in the first Mishna, Berachoth, i, 1, TNUNIT ΓΦ ΝΠ FD TW, vate
the end of the first night watch. It does not always correspond
with MINK, for TIT NNN could not be used for 737 9), chap.
xii. 13 (compare the expression common in the Palestinian
Talmud, rope nba τῳ αὶ ἸΤΈΟΝ xb, that is not all
but also”), which has the sense of summa summarum (Mishnaic
synon, 727 ὦ» 1993),

Glossary of Words and Fornis. 497

220, fool, chap. ii, 19; vii. 17; x. 3 (bis), 14; Jer. iv. 22; v. 21; in
the Book of Koheleth it is a synonym of the more frequently
used >°D3, for which it is the word in the Targums.

ὄρ, Jolly, only found chap. x. 6.

7930, Jolly, chap. i. 17, with δ᾽ [see note there], ii. 3, 12, 13 ; vii. 25;
x. I, 13 (synon. 17°03, Prov. ix. 13).

12D, Niphal, zo Je endangered, chap. x. 9. [The verb has this meaning
only here, in Chald. it is frequent in Pael, Aphel, and Ithpa.]
Compare Berachoth, i. 3, ὭΣ ΠΩΣ, 2 brought myself into
danger, whence 12D, in danger, ΕἸ τ 2), 2D and 23D,
danger. The Ithpael, }299%, found in the Targ. and Talmud,
corresponds to the Niphal.

12, deed, work, only in chap. ix. τ, like the Syr. ΒΟ Jewish Aram.
aay (THY).

τ (contracted from JTW), yet, with Nd, not yet, chap. iv. 3.

mW, or according to another reading "27 (from 7307Y), yet, chap.
iv. 2. Mishnaic 1, ag. Medarim, xi, 10, TINT PW, she zy
yet a girl, similar to, and of the same meaning as, the Syr.

y
adds which also means with the negative nondwm, like the

Με εραῖς xb wi,

ny, Hithpael, 4o dow oneself, only chap. xii. 3.

WY, to stand still, to remain, chap. ii. 93 vill. 3, as Jer. xlviii. rr;
Ps, cil. 27.

mY, see under Τ᾽.

nw, see crit. comm. on chap. v. 19; X. 19.

WY, foil, business, only in the Book of Koheleth, See note on chap.
i. 13, Ὁ. 317. This is one of the most common words of the
post-biblical Hebrew, primarily used of the subject of business,
as YANNI PPIOY, employed with this matter, Kiddushin, 6 a,
also Aram. they came to speak, narayd NINO, from one matter
to another, Baba Bathra, 114 ὦ.

DYRPWY, only chap. x. 18. ‘See note there.

nev with on, to give a feast, chap. x. 19, as Dan. v. 1, ond ‘Tay, N.T.
ποιεῖν Stans Mark vi. 21. In Ezek, iv. 15, ond MWY is used
of the preparing of food. In chap. vi. 12 the verb is used
like ποιεῖν (= διάγειν) χρόνον, Acts xv. 33. Followed by 310 it

KK

498 LExcursus 1V.

means not only fo do good, chap. vii. 20, but also 20. enjoy good,
to pass an agreeable life, chap. iii. 12 [but see our note on that
passage].

[¥23, see note on chap. ix. 11.] »

DIB (Cant. iv. 13; Neh. ii. 8), plural, chap. ii. 5, D’DTDB, parks,
gardens of trees, as Alesi‘a, 103 a, *DYND [see note on chap.
dt.5).

interpretation, explicatio, chap. viii. 1, elsewhere only in the
Chaldee portions of the Book of Daniel, an Aramaism for the
older }ND and 73%", for which the Targum has %'2 and 17202,
Talmud. 71'8, the disentanglement or making up of a matter of
strife.

Danb (01ND), a Hebraized Persian word occurring in the Books of

"Ezra and Daniel, but elsewhere only in Koh. viii, 11 [see note

there] and in Esth. i. 20, message, saying, decision ; used in the
Targums, in which the Decalogue is called }"23NB THY, and
in Syriac, but not naturalised in Talmudic,

mobo, Pilpel, derived from the adjective bbp (smooth, shining, of brass),
which occurs in Ezek. i. 7; Dan. x. 6; /o sharpen ; only found
in this sense in chap. x. 10; used in I’zek. xxi. 26 in the sense
of 22 shake [see note on chap. x. 10].

TAN), seeeng, only chap. v. 10, A’? for which the text has ΠΝ [see
note there], which may be read M's), NNT (comp. Ezek. xxviii.
17) or also N81; the last two forms are naturalized in the
language of the Mishna, and have there peculiar meanings
arising out of the idea of seezng, e.g. God in His sanctuary, or
seeing with one’s own eyes, which is the meaning of the root.

479, Niphal participle }13, only in chap. iii. 15 [see note].

nv. See note on chap. i. 14.

7, used in the Chaldee parts of Daniel and in the Targum, jt
and jW2. See note on chap. i. 14.

t)—'This form of the relative is by no meansa later form, as is shown
by the Babyl.-Assyrian sa, the Phoenician t'S [which is not to be
regarded as a shortened form of ἽΝ, see Schroder, Phonisische
Sprache, § 65], but a relative (originally a demonstrative) belong-
ing to the oldest period of the language, which in the Mishna
has entirely supplanted the "t's of the older written Hebrew
language. It is already used in the Book of Koheleth in the

Glossary of Words and Forms. 499

same way as in the Mishna, but in such a way that it stands in
the same line as ἽΝ, and disputes its supremacy. δ᾽ according
to Herzfeld occurs 68 times; ἼΡ᾽Ν, 89 times ; comp. for example
chap. i. 13 ff. ; viii. 14; x. 14, where both are used promiscuously.
The use of W'S as a relative pronoun and a relative conjunction
in Koheleth is not different from the manner in which it is used
in the older literature : ND WNW in the sense of before that,
chap. xii. 1, 2, 6, Mishnaic νον ἽΝ, is only a natural application
of the root-meaning, until that not (2 Sam. xvii. 13; 1 Kings
xvii. 17); so that it is only a matter of accident that further
proofs cannot be cited for xb ΣῈ 309, without that not (nist
guod non) =so indeed that not, chap. 111. 11 (comp. ‘mda, without
that= so indeed that, Dan. xi. 18), for which 8 722) is used in
the Mishna, 2g. Lrudin, i. 10. How far, however, the use of
Ὁ μὰς extended itself the following list will show, from which
all cases of δ᾽ standing alone as a relative, or as a relative
conjunction, have been excluded.

“aDW3, Jong ago, chap. ii. 16.

πε’

Seg, because that, eo quod, chap. vill. 17 (comp. Jon. 1.

7, 8, 12), corresponding to the Talmudic Ἵ 12.

US, all which, chap. ii. 7, 9; αἱ what, chap. xi. 8 (savi-bs,
everything future).

v ΠΡΌ ΟΣ, in all respects as, chap. ν. τ, corresponding to
the Chaldee 7 bap-ba, Dan. ii. 40, etc.

Wd, as, chap. v. 14 (ΑΞ ΕΞ, as he came), chap. xii. 7 (ania,
as he has been), and when, guum, chap. ix. 12 3 x. 3.

wenn, that which, chap. i. ο [see note there]; iii. 15; vi.

103 Vil, 245 Vill. 73 X. 14. wn), chap. ili. 22.
WN, than that, chap. v. 4 (WIRY, than that thou shouldest
vow).

ΠΩΣ nq by, in order that not, chap. vil. 14 (comp. chap,
iii, 18 5 viii. 2).
DIY, that also, chap. 11, 15 ; viil. 14.
maw and NV, only chap. ii. 8 [see note].
myn’, youth, only in chap. xi. τὸ [see note].
nav’, Hithpael, ¢o be forgotten, only chap. viii. 10, the common word
in Talmudic, e.g. Sanhedrin, 13 ὁ.

500 Lexcursus IV.

marty, see mop,

wy, to have power, to rule, chap. ii. 19 ; viii. 9 ; elsewhere only in
the books of Nehemiah and Esther (comp. Bechoroth, vii. 6,
etc.); Hiphil, zo give power, chap. v. 18; vi. 2; elsewhere only
Ps. Cxix. 133.

robes, powerful, a ruler [Assyr. silfannu, “a ruler ;” Arab. ob
chap. vili. 4, 8 [see notes there], nowhere else in Old Test.
Hebrew, but in the Mishna, eg. Kiddushin, iii. 6. poy TAT8,
pode, 7 will speak for thee to the preator.

rdys, followed by 3, having power over, only in chap. vill. 8 (comp.
Ezek. xvi. 30), on the contrary in chap. vii. 19; x. 5, as in Gen.
xlii. 6, in the political sense, a ruler [see n. on chap. vii. 19].

nev, Hithpoel in a peculiar sense, see note on chap. vii. 16.

mipay’, stnking-down, chap. x. 18, elsewhere only in Targ. Jer. xlix. 24.

‘nt’, drinking, only chap. x. 17 [see note].

vipyn nna, chap. i. 3 [see note there, p. 307] corresponding with
the Greek ὑφ᾽ ἡλίῳ or ὑπὸ τὸν ἥλιον.

'PA, only in chap. vi. το, not found elsewhere in Biblical Hebrew,
but it occurs in Chaldee, in the Targums and Talmud.

PM, to be straight, to straighten, chap. i. 15 [see note there, p. 318].
Piel, 4o make straight, to arrange, chap vil. 13 ; xi, 9, a word
common in the Mishna, both in Piel and Hiphil, to arrange
(e.g. Gittin, iv. 2), as well as its derivatives PPA and 729A;
the latter noun is used also in sense of welfare (Gittin, iv. 6),
ordinances (Shabbath, 30 a). For the former compare the
phrase DIDI PN, the ordinance of the scribes, see Ὁ. 48.

INDEX OF TEXTS.

ILLUSTRATED AND NOT MERELY REFERRED TO

OLD TESTAMENT.

GENESIS.
PAGE
i. 31 * * 343
iii, 14, 17 384
ἡ 16. ὃ ὦ σε
» IQ - 25, 44, 232
we c a . : 373
xxix, 9. ᾿ ᾿ 47
ΧΧΧΙΙ. 9. 0 ‘ i ᾧ 225
oa ae J τ < 355
xlix, 24 « ὃ ᾿ Ἶ 4 345
Exopbus.
i Ὁ ‘ a 93
xv. 26. ᾿ 4
xxiii, ὃ. a a ‘ 384.
xaxi. 1,2 % ᾿ ᾿ ἷ 378
LEVITICUS.
xxvi. 8, 12, ff. ΓΙ Ν ‘ 361
NUMBERS.
io). th Ε 487
xi, 16 ‘ 4 ‘ . 98, 103
xv. 39 - . . 234
ΧΧΧ, τ > . a ᾧ 361
xxxil, 10 % Ρ : " 199
DEUTERONOMY.
xvi, τ. ; 3 F 384
xix, 5. a ‘ Η 423
xxiii, 22-24. ες 36ο

xvi 47.
XX. 19-22
XXVi, 10.

ΧΟ, 27 5
xix. 36.
XX. 15-22

iii, 25

JUDGEs.

t SAMUEL.

2 SAMUEL.

1 KINGS.

2 KINGS.

PAGE

341

502

I CHRONICLES.

Xvi.
ERI 22,

2 CHRONICLES,

xvi. 12
Ezra.

ii. 2-59 .
iii, 12, 13
‘vi
viii. I-14
xX. 16

NEHEMIAH.

ii. 14

iii, 15

vill, IO. ὺ
a 1 (A.V. ix 38]
a 2-28 . ὰ

ESTHER.

Jos.

Ἵν 3
χορῷ,
a. 18, 19

ye BT, 22
xiv. 7, ff.
xviii, 11
Rik, 29-7
ML ἃ, fhe
xxxi. 30
KARML, 23

PSALMS.

xxvii, ἃ,
Axxil Ὧι ἐς
Xxxvii. 13
xlix, 12

»» 13, 21

” 14, 15
Ixxii, 16
Ixxiil.
cexliv.

PROVERDS.

i. 18
vii. 7, 10-20 .
vil. IT

Lndex of Texts.

PAGE
PAGE | xv.I, : ᾿ . 421
148. ay 13 234
333) 4,15. 46
ὯΔ. ὦ 193
4 xvi, 8 383
Ὡς ἃ 416
xviii. 22 2 393
478 | xx. 27 241
385 | xxi. 29 395
478 | xxii. 13 252
ἐν 4) 20 , 103
480 | xxv. 1 4, 440, 456
ἀν; ἦν 205
ἜΝ. 165
327 | xxix. a1. 377
” xxx. 6 473
478 xxxi, 14. 225
479
478 SONG OF SonGs,
i713 466
329 | vi. 2 327
vii. 10 .11, 465
PS ty. 158 phe nBE 05
203 | Via 320
151, 158
233 ISAIAH.
273 | ili, 12 219
252 | v.11 ”
197 | xiii. 10, 11 241
253 | xiv. 18-20 373
360 | xxiv, 2 406
203 | Kev. ἢ 413
ΧΙ ἄς ς 248
ΠΕ, 301
351. xxx. 15 352, 416
167 15. 26 375
382 | sii 2 416
348 | yay. 9 » 878
347 | lili. . 76, 265
10 Ὁ μιαρῷ 360
24
65 JEREMIAH.
ἘΞ δα 65
ax. 14-18 151, 158
μ 202 | xxii 10 © 373
11, 466 | xxxi. 8 23
466 ve 20; 30 423

Lndex of Texts. 503
EZEKIEL, JorL.

δ PAGE PAGE
XVI. 23. a 5. Ψ % 23 li. 2, 10. 241
“Vil. 2. Π ᾿ ¥ 423

32° . ᾿ 199 MICAH.

ἈΚ Χ ΧΙ, 7,8 " ‘ ῶ 241 iii. 3 351
DANIEL, HABAKKUK.
xii. 2 » ἢ τοῦ 3 39)
ZECHARIAH.
Hosea. ᾿
. 14 5
iv. 6 ‘ 18 | iv. 2 267
τ AT ᾿ 384 | xi. τό 351
xi. 2 397
xii. 2 ᾿ 7 318 MALACcHI.
a4, 9 370 | i. 7 361
APOCRYPHA.
2 Espras (4th Ezra). xm. 16 - ¥ 426
vii. 78 (missing fragment) 437 | ὃ". "ie ᾿ "
Site aaa 6 xi. | . . :
44-4 405 Be ; 45
ΤΌΒΙΤ. xvill. 6. χ ᾿ 345
iii,6 ς ᾿ 201 » 22 43
xix. 16 αὶ 8
WISDOM. xx. 6,7. 4 : ‘ τ
ii, ‘ 67 | xxi. 25, 26 . ”
ἐφ Ἢ 5 68, 347 | xxvi. 23. : 5 . F 45
» 345 68 | xxvii. 26 5 . a
», 6-10 . 67 a ὃ. ἃ καὶ ᾿ 47
a IB ὦ 55. ΧΧΧΙΙ. 29<05 2 45
3, 12-20 59,75 | xxxiv. 7. ᾿ ; 46
iil, 2% x 71 | xxxvill. I-15 ῶ 4, 50
iv. 12 ᾿ 377 | xl. ΤῈ 44
v. 14, 15 71 | le 1-4 37
“7: 20 74} ,,1-21 36
vil. 1, ff. ᾿ 433 | ,,2 ᾷ 22
» 7 61
WF ; 55 1 MACCABEEs.
» 8 ᾿ Ὡ ᾿ 339 | xiv. 28 476
EcCLESIASTICUS (Sirach).
2 MaccaBEEs.
Prologue +s 33 Ty 30 fi. .
τ δ. ke : 44 | lie 3, 13, 14 464
νι ς ᾿ " 7 203
vit 14 43, 482 3 MaccaBEEs.
i 15 ὁ ἦ ᾿ ὦ 46 | ii, 1-24. ‘ . . . 36

504

MATTIIEW.

1. 24

sg 358-81
» 43. .
Vin 7) Ma x
1123

» 34
vil, 21
xii. 19
xviii. 21.
RKIs 31 32
RAV, THs
xxvii. 53
xxviii. 2.

LUKE.
xi. 34
xii. 16-21
” 29
” 32
XXIV. 44.

Joun.
iii. 6-8
» 6
” 8
xl. 10
xvii. 15.

ACTS.

Romans.

vi. 23
viii. 21
4j- 22
a 2237

L[ndex of Texts.

NEW TESTAMENT.

322
377
179
40, 461, 462

433
181

231
334
177

342

213
170
228
399
179
177
177

PAGE
eae 380
». 4 9
»» 20 378
ve BA BE 49
xi. 29 269
»» 33 404
xii. 11, 12 232
» 16. 377
ν, 10, ff. . 223
xiii, 1-7 - 218, 222, 398
»» 14 221, 234
xiv. 12 106

1 CORINTHIANS.
ae 3l 177
XIV. 34 209
xv . 62, 168
2 CORINTHIANS.
ν. 14 176
GALATIANS.

vi. T ὦ 229
a 78 καὶ 231
EPHESIANS.

vi, 13-17 74
PHILIPPIANS.
ie ὩΣ 179
lv. 4 344
1 TIMOTHY.

iv. 7, 8 177
yoo 178
Vv. 23 325
vi. 9, 10. 149
2 TIMOTHY.
iui, 16 104

i. 1
27 3
ii. 15
xii, 14

i. 17.
» 19
χα
iii. z
iv. 23
ve 14, 15
» 20

HEBREws.

JAMEs.

L[ndex of Texts.

2 PETER,

I Joun.

REVELATION.

505

PAGE
200

177
403

361
”
179
222

193

GENERAL

INDEX.

*,” The purely grammatical notes have not in general been indexed, nor have
the names of Jewish scholars mentioned only in the:extracts from the Talmud and
Midrash been included in this Index. Works often referred to are noted “passim.”

Ab-Beth-Din, the, 485.

Abel-beth-Maacha, deliverance of, 414,
417.

Abbott, 35.

Aboth (Massecheth), 3, 5, 10, 19, 21,
47, 239, 245, 335, 379, 386, 413,
475, 480, 486.

Aboth of R. Nathan, 11, 14, 465 ff,
480.

“Esop’s fables, 204.

ZEschylus, 335.

Age, the weak voice of old, 248.

Agriculture, advantage of, 364.

Akiba, Rabbi, on the Apocryphal
Books, 467, 468 ; on Song of Songs,
472; remarkable saying on ‘‘the
net spread over man,” 413.

Almond tree in blossom, 257 ff.

Alphabet, ancient Hebrew, 483.

Anacreon, 431:

Anger, reproof of, 237.

Annals, blank in Jewish, 7.

Antilegomena of Old and New Testa-
ment, 6.

Apocryphal Books, see under £xtvane-
ous, Ben Stra, Wisdom.

Aquila, traces of, in the present text of
the LXX,, 51, 52, 338, 392, 406, 440.

Aristeas, 33.

Aristophanes, 310, 431.

Aristotle, 213, 388, 389.

Asher, Dr. David, Arthur Schopen-
hauer, 160.

Athbash alphabet, 127.

Atheism, Renan on, 167; avowed by
modern Pessimists, 151; results of,
166.

Avicebron, see Lin Gabirol.

Aurelius, Marcus, 315, 316, 342, 370,
377, 378, 391, 433-

Aurivillius, Dessert, 405, 475.

Bacher, 457.

Bacon, Lord, 195, 230.

Baer, -fccent.-system,
Setzung, 441.

Bagoas, 220, 372.

Baraitha explained, 451, 454.

Bauer, Ch. F., xiv. passim.

Beal, Prof. Samuel, on Nirvana, 174.

Ben Biita, story of, 19 ff.

Ben Laanah, the Books of, 468, 471.

Ben Satda, the Books of, 468.

Ben Sira, a Palestinian Jew, 48 ; author
of the Book of Ecclesiasticus, 31 ;
designations of that book, 31 ; trans-
lated from a IIebrew original, 32 ;
fragments extant in Heb. and Chal-
dee, 32°; its use of the LAX. transl,
33, 38; indications of its date, 34-
38; reference to the Canon, 39 ; use
of the Book of Koheleth, 31, 41 ; his

412; Metheg-

General Index.

additions to old proverbs, 46, 48;
references to his work in the Talmud,
etc., 46, 47, 468 ; referred to some-
times as canonical, 47 ; explanation
of this fact, 48; allusions to, in the
New Testament, 4, 48, 49 ; reference
to physicians, 4; the Talmud on the
Book of, 467 ff.

Ben Tiglah, Book of, 469, 471.

Beneficence, exhortations to, 226; ad-
vantages of, 228,

Bensly, R. L., Adissing Fragment of
LV. Esra, 437, 465.

Bernard, St., Sermones de diversis, 230.

Bernstein, H. G., Questiones, xiv.,
passim, 376.

Bhagavad-Gita, 162.

Biesenthal, J. H., Zrostschretben des
Apostels Paulus an die Hebrier, 38,
421.

Bird; rising up at the voice of a, 247.

Bissell, Comm. on Apocrypha, 33, 34,
37) 44, 56.

Bleek, Friedr., Einleitungin Alt. Test.,
464.

Bloch, J. S., Studien zur Gesch. ὦ.
Sammlung der alt-heb. Lit., 10, 25,
453, 457, 463, 466, 480, 482, 484;
Ursprung u, Entstehungseeit d. Ko-
helet, 16, 17, 18, 20, 22, 25, 87, 92,
94, 99, 469.

Bode, Ὁ, Α., 444.

Boethus ben Zonin, 462.

Boethus, founder of a sect of Sadducees,
131, 462.

Borrowing days, 271.

Bottcher, Fried., xiv., xviii., passim ;
Collectanea Hebr., 446.

Bread cast upon the waters, 223 ff.

Brecher, Gideon, Das transcend. Mage
u. mag. Hetlarten in Talmud, 4.

Bridges, Rev. C., Zxpos. of Eccl., xiii.,
223, 229, 230, passim.

Bronze tablets at Lyons, the, 111, 112.

Buddeus, 476.

Buddhism, similarity of, to Pessimism,
158, 172, 182; superior to Pessim-
ism as a moral system, 173; its
doctrine of Nirvana, 162, 173, 174,

507

182; selfish in its views, 175 ; practi-
cal failure of, 182; its four cardinal
tenets, 182.

Bullock, Rev. W. T., Comm, on Eccl.,
xiv., passim.

Bunyan, John, Grace Abounding, 48.

Butler, Bishop, Analogy of Religion,
177, 230.

Burial, want of, a punishment, 373.

Buxtorf, J.; Lex. Chald. and Talm.,
passim; TZzderias, 5, 6, 455, 476;
Florilegium Heb., 205; De Abbrev.
feb, 443.

Byron, 152.

Caspari, C. P., Der Syrisch.-Ephraim.
Krieg, 112.

Cassell, Dr, Paulus, 281,

Catullus, 309.

Cemeteries, name of ‘‘ eternal house ”
given to Jewish, 201, 437, 491.

Cheerfulness, commended in youth,
234, 237; and early piety, 238.

Cheyne, Rev. T. K., Prophecies of
Zsaiah, 248, 391.

Children, the early death of, 18.

Chilon, 388,

Chiyya, story of Rabbi, 198.

Christianity, the pessimism of, 177;
its optimistic side, 178; a religion
suited for man, 179: charged with
selfishness, 176; unselfishness of, 180,

Cicero, 68, 118, 334, 349, 350, 404.

City, going to the, 428.

Claudius, speech of the Emperor, 111.

Clericus, 431.

Cohen, David (Kahana), Heb. Com.
on Koheleth, 23.

«ς Corrections of the Scribes,” the, δ.

Cox, Samuel, D.D., Zhe Quest of the
Chief Good, xiv., 143, 144, 229.

Cranes of Thycus, 223.

Creation of man, Jewish opinions con-
cerning, 374.

Dahne, iidisch.-Alexandr. Religions-
Philosophie, 63.

Dale, Rev. T. P., Comm. on Eccles,
xiv., passim,

508

Davidson, Rev. Prof. A. B., Avbrew
Accentuation, 394.

Davidson, Rev. Dr. Samuel, Zntroduc-
tion to Old Test., 14, 49, passim.

Davids, Rhys, see under Rhys-Davids.

“Days of the old woman,” the, 271.

Deane, W. J., Zhe Book of Wisdom,
56, 58, 68, 74,

Death, man thinks little about, 370;
cause of, 399; unexpected, 413; a
winged Pegasus, 240; the days of,
271; Eccles. xii, supposed to be a
dirge of, 239; the night of, and the
terrors of the grave, 253 ; net spread
over all people, 413.

Delitzsch, Prof. Franz, Comm. on
Koheleth, xv. passim; mistakes of
the English transl. of that comm., 119,
385, 406, 489; Gesch. der jiidisch.
Poesic, 32, 47, 394, 396; das
Salomonisch. Spruchbuch, 4, 583
Comm. on Isaiah, 391; Comm. on
Habb. 405; Rohling’s Talmudjude be-
leuchtet, 64; Handschriftlich. Funde,
222; Fesus und LHillel, 24; Hebrew
Transl. of New Test., 222; Comm.
on Psalms, 412; Comm. on Genesis,
327; Bibl. Psychology, 319, 320,
420; Talmud. Studien, 474; Fidisch.-
Arab, Poesien, 493; Amtsfrage in
Mischna und Gemara, 495.

Delitzsch, Prof. Friedr., Wo lag das
Paradies ? 128, 255, 327, 330.

Derenbourg, Joseph, Moles détachées sur
PEcelésiaste, 190; Essat sur l’ Histoire
et la Geogr. de la Palestine, 440.

Diez, Denkwiirdigkeiten von Asien, 227.

Dillmann, Prof. Dr., Gramm. der
Aethiop, Spr., 281.

Diodorus Siculus, 435.

Diogenes Laertius, 388.

Dods, Dr. Marcus, ALohammed, Buddha
and Christ, 173.

Doederlein, 438, passim,

Doors shut towards the street, 245.

Dove’s law of the winds, 310.

Dreams, 362, 363.

‘Driver, Prof. 5, R., Hebrew Tenses,
xviii., passim.

General Index.

Dukes, Leopold, Rabbinische Blumen-
fest, 4, 32, 44, 50, 204, 205, 219,
381, 396, 425.

Du Meril, Poestes Latines, 435.

Dunash, Sefer Teshuboth, 433.

Ecclesiastes, see under Koheleth.

Ecclesiasticus, the Book of, see under
Ben Siva.

Eichhorn, 34, 89.

Eleazar, Rabbi, on the death of chil-
dren, 18.

Elster, xv., passim.

Epilogue, the, of Koheleth, 97;
opinions of Krochmal and Fiirst, 97;
of Graetz, 98; Bloch’s modification
of Krochmal’s view, 99; view of
Renan, 100; three points of, 100;
disavowal of Solomonic authorship,
102; views of Ewald and Delitzsch,
102; affirms the inspiration of the
Sacred Writings, 104; gives a warn-
ing how to learn, 105 ; speaks of a
future judgment, 106; arguments,
pro and’con, as to its authorship, 438.

Essen, von, Ludwig, xv., passim.

Essenes, the, 379.

Esther, reception of, into the Canon,
17, 455, 471, 473.

Eternal house, see under Cemeteries.

Eternity; the idea of, implanted in
man’s heart, 194.

Euergetes, two monarchs of that name,
34, 35-

Euripides, 434.

Evil days, Koheleth’s description of
the, 240; seven stanzas of Koheleth
on the, 242,

Ewald, F.C. Abodah Sarah, 432, 467.

Ewald, Prof. H., Dichter des alt,
Bundes, xv., passim; <Ausfiihri.
Lehrb, der Heb. Spr., xviii., passim ;
Gramm. Crit. Arab. 3073 Gesch.
des Volkes Israels, 5, 76.

Extraneous Books, the, 467, 468, 469.

Ezekiel and the Pentateuch, 457, 458.

Face, The Talmud on the expression of
the, 394.

General Index.

Farrar, Rev. F. W., Life of Christ, 24.

Fence round the Law, Io, 442, 466.

Field’s edition of Origen’s Hexapla,
XVIL, passim,

Flint, Prof., Aztd- Theistic theories, 175.

Fools, song of, 382; the fool abroad
and at home, 419.

Forgery, unjust charge of, brought
against the Book of Koheleth, 111 ;
the Book of Wisdom not guilty of,
61; forgeries of later Jewish writers,
62.

Frankel, Vorstudien zu der LXX., 38.

Freedom of man, 339; controversy
concerning, 379, see under Predes-
tination.

Fritzsche, Hand, 2. Apokryph. d. a. T.
(on the Book of Jesus the Son of
Sirach), 31, 33, 34, 35» 37, 443 Libri
Apoc. Vet. Test., 465.

Fiirst, Prof. Julius, Coxcord., passim ;
Heb, und Chald. Worterbuch, passim ;
Gesch. der Bibl. Lit., 5; Kanon des
Alt. Test., xv., passim.

Future beyond man, the, 387.

Gabirol, see under 76% Gadirol,

Gamaliel I., his advice to the Sanhe-
drin, 22; supposed dialogue with
St. Paul, 23, 24.

Gamaliel IT., 15.

“*Gaudeamus igitur,” the, 435.

Geier, Martin, 224, passim.

Geiger, Dr. Abr., Urschrift der Bibel,
239, 348, 411, 464, 472, 4825 Fe-
dische Zeitschrift, 264; Lehrb. d.
Mischnah, 280, 328, 488.

Gemara explained, 456.

Gesenius, W., ed. Grant, edited by
Kautzsch, xvii, passim; Lehrged.,
xviii, passim ; Heb. τε. Chald. Wor-
terbuch, ed. by Miihlau u. Volck,
passim ; Zhes. Heb. et Chald., passim.

Ginsburg, Dr. C., ést. and Crit.
Comm. on Ecel., xv., passim ; Levita’s
Massoreth ha-Massoreth, 9, 96, 247,
475-

Given, Dr., Zruth of Scripiure, etc.,
XV., 92, 120.

509

Goethe, Westéstlich. Divan, 226.

Gracus Venetus, edited by Prof. O. v.
Gebhardt, 320, passim.

Graetz, Prof. H., Koheleth erlaiitert,
xy., passim ; Aonatsschrift, 457, etc. ;
Geschichte der Fuden, 440, 458, 467,
482, 485.

Grammar, peculiarities of, in Book of
Koheleth, 121, 488.

Grimm, Hands. 2. d. Apokryphen d.
alt, Test. (on Book of Wisdom), 55,
56, 58, 59, 63-

Grotius, in Critici Sacrt, xiv., passim ;
denial of-the Solomonic authorship
of Ecclesiastes, 81.

Gruteri, /useriptiones Antigua, 111, 436.

Gwinner, W., Schopenhauer’s Leben,
153, 160, 166, 173.

Hades, 193, 198.

Hagiographa, 40, 452, see Kethudin.

Hahn, H. A., Comm. on Fecl., xv.,
passim ; explanation of Eccl. chap.
xii., 253-255.

Hamburger, Real-Encyclopadie fiir Bibel
u. Talmud, 401.

Hameram or Hameras, Book of, 470,
471.

Tlananya ben Hiskiya, 457.

Hands defiled by the Holy Scriptures,
16 ff., 470 ff.

Haphtarah explained, 463.

Hardy, Spence, Legends and Theories
of the Buddhists, 173.

ν. Hartmann, Eduard, Philosophie des
Unbewussten, κι, 152, 155, 156 ff.,
159, 169, 170, 174, 181, 211, 212;
Phenom. des sittl.. Bewusstseins, 155,
161 ff., 207, 209, 210; Gesch. und
Begriindung des Pessimismus, 153;
on women, 207; polygamy and
monogamy, 212; three stages of il-
lusion, 159; see under Pessimism.

Hartmann, Anton. Theod., Verbindung
des alt. Test. mit dem Neuen, 467, 475.

Hasidim, the, 132.

Haym, 152.

Hegel, 154, 155.

510

Heidenheim, Dr. M., articles in Deutsche
Vierteljahrsschrift, 478; on the
seventy princes in Book of Numbers,
487.

Heine, 132, 137, 152.

Heinemann, 411.

Hengstenberg, E. W., on Ecclesiastes,
xv., passim.

Herder, 152.

Herod the Great’s interview with Ben
Bita, 19, 20.

Herodian theory of Prof. Graetz, 19.

Herodotus, 151, 347, 349.

Herzfeld, Dr. L., Coheleth, xv., pas-
sim; Gesch. @. Volkes Lsrael, 10, 478.

Hezekiah, his religious reforms, 3 ; his
college of scribes, 4, 453, 455 ff,
465 ff,

Hilgenfeld’s Zertschrift, 354.

Hillel and Shammai, contest between
the schools of, on Lcclesiastes, 14,
15, 19, 471 ff.

Hlitzig, Prof. Dr. F., on Eccles., xv.,
passim.

IIoelemann, Prof. Dr., xv., 281, 322,
337) 342, 344, 435, 445.

Hoey, Dr. Wim., Transl. of Oldenberg’s
work on Buddhism, 182, 183, 184;
note on Buddhism, 183, 184.

Hoffmann, Dr. David, Der oberste
Gerichtshof, 485 ff.

Holy Scriptures defiling the hands, 16.

Iloltzmann, Die apokryph. Biicher in
Bunsen’s Bibelwerk, 10.

Homer, 471.

Horace, 265, 324, 352, 366, 367, 375
378, 385, 388, 431, 434, 465.

Hume, 152.

Hyrcanus, 37, 487.

Tbn Ezra, passim.

Ibn Gabirol, 160.

Ibycus, the cranes of, 223.

Illusion, v. Hartmann’s three stages of,
159.

Tahaveh, Name, not used in Koheleth,
90, concealment of pronunciation of,
343, 467.

General Index..

Jahn, Linleitung, 124.

Jamnia, First Synod of, 14, 460; Second
Synod of, 15, 17, 18, 458.

Janichs, Vers. Syr.. xv.) 431, 435.

Jerome, 306, 308, 309, 317, 335, 358,
passim ; on the books of Old Test.,
459 fi.

Jewish division of Book of Koheleth,
282; threefold division of the Scrip-
tures, 458 ff.

Jewish race and religion, Schopen-
hauer’s hatred of, 160.

Joel, D., Aberglaube u. die Stellung des
Fudenthums, 4.

Joel, Dr. M., Bliche in die Religions-
geschichte, 458, 468.

Johnston, Rev. David, Treatise on
Authorship of Ecclesiastes, xv-, passim.

Josephus, 7, 8, 19, 37, 327, 379, 396,
429, 485; Against Apion, 458 ff., 461.

Joshua, Rabbi, on the early death of
children, 18.

Jost, 481.

Jouy, on women, 214.

Judgments, the Divine, 399.

Justin Martyr, 315, 437.

Justinus, de Hist. Philipp. etc., 372, 422.

Juvenal, 353, 367, 416, 431.

Kabus, anecdote from the, 227.

Kahana, David, Heb. Comm. on Eccl.,
23)

Kaiser, Koheleth das Collect. d. David-
ischen Konige, xv. passim.

Kalisch, Dr. M. M., Heb. Grammar,
xviii., passim ; Path and Goal, 154,
156, 160, 162, 173, 175, 181.

Keri or K’ri explained, 482.

Kethubim explained, 452, 459, 463.

Khayyam, Omar, 168.

Kimchi, R. David, Afichlol, ed. Fiirth,
24, 258, 347, 349, 368, 404, 424, 427,
434, 441.

Kings, Koheleth on the duty of sub-
mission to, 218, 398; the oath of
allegiance, 396; importance of noble
birth in, 220; evil of a child king,
219 ff. ; ruin caused by revelry of
kings and nobles, 221; subjects not

General Index.

to cast off allegiance, 222, 397; obe-
dience enjoined towards, 398; pa-
tience to be exercised in case of an
evil monarch, 398; curse not the
king, 223.

Kirby and Spence’s Entomology, 170.

Kleinert, Prof. Paul, on Leclestastes,
xvi, passim.

Knauer, 152.

Knobel, Aug., Comm. tber Koheleth,
xvi., passim.

Koehler, Prof. Dr. Aug., Machexilisch.
Propheten, 332.

Koenig, Prof, F, E. Lehrg. des Heb.
Sprache, xviii., passim.

Koeppen, 182.

Koheleth, Book of, early difficulties
felt regarding, 12; admitted into
Canon previous to the time of Hillel
and Shammai, 1§; its canonicity,

.18 ; quoted as canonical at interview
between Herod and Ben Bita, 19;
by Gamaliel, 22 ff.; prior to Herodian
era, 24, 469; alleged contradictions
in, 12; Book of, claimed by Pes-
simists, 158; Pessimism of, 141;
name of, a title of Solomon, 82;
its meaning, 84 ff. ; note on, 279 ff. ;
Koheleth and the Koheleth, ror,
439; the Talmud on the Book of,
469.

Krochmal, Nachman, ore Neboche
ha-zeman, 8, 82, 97, 99, 467 ; Articles
in Kerem Chemed, 477.

Kuenen, Prof., of Leyden, on the Men
of the Great Synagogue, 6 ff., 476 ff.;
on the Jewish Sanhedrin, 485.

de Lagarde, xvii., 127.

Lane’s Arabic English Lexicon, 263,
271, 327, 331, 351.

Lassalle, Ardeiterlesebuch, 165+

Laws of Nature, uniformity of the,
229.

Leathes, Prof. Stanley, 114.

Leibnitz, 152.

Lepsius, Kénigsbuch der alt, Aegypter,
35:

Leusden, 21.

511

_ Levita, Elias, see under Ginsburg.

Levy, Dr. J., Weuheb. u. Chald. Wér-
terbuch, passim ; Chald. Worterbuch,
passim.

Levy, M.A., Article in Zeitschrift der
72.127. 491.

Lewis, Prof. Tayler, xvi. passim.

Lightfoot, 97. :

Literary freedom used by inspired
writers, 110 ff., 453.

Liturgy, Jewish, 481, 482.

Locust, various explanations of the,
260 ff.

Long, Rev. James, astern Proverbs
and Emblems, 211,

Longfellow, 91.

Louis XIV. of France, story of, 92.

Lowth, Bishop, Hebrew Poetry, 226.

Lucretius, 192, 269, 312.

Luthardt, Prof., Moderne
schauungen, 166, 179.

Luther, Martin, Zaé/e Talk, 80, 81; on
Lcclesiastes, XV. passim ; on women,
214.

Luzzatto, 121, 394, 418.

LXX. (the) version of the Book of
Koheleth, 49 ff; traces of the in-
fluence of Aquila on the present text,
50, 51, 52, 338, 392, 406, 440;
Origen a witness for a LXX. transl.
of Koheleth, 50; viewed sometimes
as a blessing and sometimes as a
misfortune, 38, 458 ; probably re-
ceived sanction of Sanhedrin, 33;
the seventy translators, 33.

Lyons, the bronze tablets at, 111, 112.

Weltan-

Mailander, 161.

Maimonides, 17, 127.

Malismus or Miserabilismus, 152.
Malthusian theory, 160.

“Mammon of unrighteousness,” 228,
Manilius, 315.

Marriage, see under Women, Polygamy.
Mary, the Blessed Virgin, 468.

“ Masters of Collections,” 103.
Megillath Taanith, 458.

Meliorism, 172.

Melito, 464.

Giz

**Men of the Great Synagogue,” see
under Syvagogze.

““Men of Hezekiah,” see under Heze-
hiah,

Menander, 349, 386, 431.

Mendelssohn, see under Preston.

Menzel, W., Naturkunde, 310.

Merchants recommended to engage in
foreign enterprises, 224.

Messianic age, curious views concerning
the, 23, 24 ; passages of Ecclesiastes
supposed to be Messianic, 136, 357,
365.

Michaelis, J. D., 224, 236, 442, 476,
493-

Midrash, on Solomon’s fall, legend of
the, 123; sayings of, 81 ff. ; Midrash
Rabba, xix., passim.

Mill ceasing, ‘sound of the, 241,

Milton, 343.

Mishna explained, 456.

Missions, results of Christian, 180.

Mnemonics, Masoretic, 447, 453, 2825
Renan’s suggestion as to, 127.

Monogamy, see under Polygamy.

Montfaucon, Orig. Hexapla, 392.

Mormonism praised by Schopenhauer,
212.

Mourners, hired, 265.

Mozley, Prof., Sermons Parochial and
Occasional, 145.

Miihlau and Volck, Gesentus’ Heb. und
Chald. Worterbuch, passim.

Miiller, J., M@asechet Sopherim, 38,
462, 463.

Nachtigal, 239, passim.

Name, the Sacred, concealment of,
343; not used in the Book of Ko-
heleth, 90.

Nasi, the, 485.

Nathan, the Aboth of Rabbi, see under
Aboth.

Nestle, E., Vet, Zest. Gract Codd., etc.,
evil. 51, 235-

Net spread over all living, 413.

Nirvana, 173, 175, 182 ff.

Noack, Uvrsprung des Christenthums,
58, 59.

General [ndex.

Officials, corruption of, 150, 364.

Ointment, 418,

Oldenburg, Prof. Hermann, Buddha,
sein Leben, etc., 182.

Olshausen, Justus, Lehrd. der Thd.
Sprache, xviii., passim,

“One ofa thousand,” 203.

Onias, 36, 37, 38.

Origen, a witness to the existence of a
LXX. transl. of Ecclesiastes, 50;
importance of this in relation to the
theory of Graetz, 51, 52; Hexafla,
see under Field, Montfaucon.

Ovid, 309, 366, 375, 389.

** Pairs,” the, 486.

Palestinian winter, the, 270,

Pandera,.Son of, 468.

Paradise, the word, 327.

Paul, St, supposed discussion with
Gamaliel, 22, 25 ; advice to Timothy,
326.

Perowne, Dean, Comme. on the Psalms,
113; articles on Leclesiastes, xvi.,
passim.

Persian districts, 329.

Pessimism of the Book of Koheleth,
141; doctrines opposed to modern
Pessimism, 164; Pessimism before
Schopenhauer, 153 ; of Schopenhauer
and von Hartmann, 152 ff.; Sully
on unreasoned, 153; results of,
according to Venetianer, 159; con-
ducts to asceticism and suicide, 161 ;
attempt of Taubert to deny this fact,
162 ff. ; the Socialistic ‘movement,
and, 165 ; rapid progress of, x., 171 ;
modern science and, 171 ; points of
truth in, 171 ; resemblance to Bud-
dhism, 172; inferiority to Buddhism
as ἃ moral system, 173; Christianity
and, 177; selfishness of, 181.

Pessimist: philosophers, inconsistencies
of, 166.

Pharisees. on freedom and the Divine
decrees, the, 379; and Sadducees,
388, 470.

Philo, 7, 56, 461, 464.

ag

General [ndex. 513

Pisistratus of Israelitish literature, the,

ἧς

Plato, dialogues of, 118 ; parable of the
charioteer, 324.

Plautus, 351.

Plinii Zpistole, 105; Nat. Hist., 265.

Plumptre, Dean, Comm. on Ecclesiastes,
xvi., passim ; articles on the writings
of Apollos, 58; attack on Jewish
expositors, 81; ideal biography of
Koheleth, 133 ff. ; curious interpre-
tation of ‘the grasshopper,” 261.

Pluralis inhumanus, 353.

Plutarch, 263.

Polygamy and monogamy, 170, 212.

Porphyrius, 35.

Prayer on Day of Atonement, 319 ;
Jewish forms of, 477, 481 ; unneces-
sary epithets not to be used in address-
ing God, 482.

Predestination and man’s freedom, 339,
378, 379.

Prejevalsky’s Mongolia, 181.

Preston, Theodore, Alendelssohn’s
Comm on Ecclesiastes, transl., ete.,
xvi., passim.

Propertius, 368.

Prophecy, literal interpretations of, 24.

Prophets, former and later, 459, 464.

Proverbs, principle on which they are
framed, 205; relating to women,
204 ff.

Psalter of Solomon, 487.

Ptolemy I., Soter, 37; Ptolemy IL,
Philadelphus, 33; Ptolemy IIL,
Euergetes I., 34; Ptolemy IV., Philo-
pator, 36 ; Ptolemy VI., Philometor,
35; Ptolemy VII., Euergetes IL,
or Physcon, 34, 35.

Publius Syrus, 352, 367, 431, 435-

Purim, Feast of, 473, 474, 484.

Pusey, Dr., Daniel the Prophet, 32, 34,
35, 38, 119. é

Quarles, Hieroglyphics of the Life of
Man, 178.

Rab, 343, 359-
Rabbinowicz, 24.

3

Rashi, 5, 127, 188, 196, passim.

Rau, Diatribe de Synag. Magna, 475.

Rawlinson, Prof. George, Ancient
Monarchies, 1§0.

Rebilus, C. Caninius, 404

Remedies, Book of, 4.

Renan, Ernest, on name Koheleth, 84;
on the Epilogue, 99; his new work
on Ecclesiastes (?Zcclésiaste), and
its author, xvi., passim ; 125 ff;
former opinion as to the date of
Ecclesiastes, 117 ; on atheism, 167 ;
maintains that Ecclesiastes is no-
where obscene, 265 ; Ze Cantigue,
116; Histoire des Langues Sémi-
tigues, 117 5 PAntechrist, 117.

Revue de Deux Mondes, 132.

Rhys-Davids, Buddhism, 173, 174;
article in Cotemporary Review, 175.

Robertson Smith, Prof. W., Old Test.
in the Jewish Church, vii., 6, 18 ; on
“the Men of the Great Synagogue,”
5, 476 ff. ; on the Book of Ecclesi-
astes, 18.

Rosenmiiller, Scho/ia, xvi., passim.

Row, Rev. C. A., The Fesus of the
Evangelists, 176.

Sadducees, see under Pharisees.

Sallust, 112.

Samuel, Rabbi, on Zsther, 17, 473.

Sanhedrin, institution of the, 485.

Schifer, B., Vewe Untersuchungen tiber
das Biwh Koheleth, xvi.

Schelling, 154, 436.

Schleusner, 68, 383.

Schmidt, Prof. Oscar, Die Grundlagen
der Philosophie des Unbewussten, 171.

Schmidt, 239, 436, 438, 442.

Schnurrer, Chronik dér Seuchen, 173.

Schools, see Synagogze.

Schopenhauer, Arthur, on Koheleth,
142, 151; natural temperament of
1533 principles of his philosophy,
155 ff.; abuse of the Jews, 160;
recommends asceticism, 161 ; strange
views of, 162; Welt als Wille und
Vorstellung, 155, 158, 160, 161, 166,

LL

51.

167, 169, 170, 172, 178; Parergatnd
Laralipomena, 166, 169 ; Leben, by
Gwinner (see under Gwinner); life
of, 166; a misanthrope, 166; his
pride, 160; inclination towards Bud-
dhism, anecdote of, 173; on women,
207; on polygamy and monogamy,
170, 212; explanation of the passion
of love, 168; apology for sodomy,
170.

Schrader, Xetlinschriften und das Alt.
Test., 390.

Schroder, Phanzzische Sprache, 498.

Schiirer, Meutest. Zeilgeschichte, 37.

Scriptures, threefold division of the
Jewish, 39, 40.

Seasons, Hebrew mode of speaking of
the, 242.

Seidlitz, Carl von, Schopenhauer vom
medictn, Standpunkte, 153.

Seneca, 314, 323.

Serpents, dangers from, 422; fable
about, 425.

Seven stanzas of Koheleth, the, 272.

Severus, dying words of the Emperor
Septimius, 92.

Shakespeare, 68, 248, 367.

Sheol, its various meanings, 193, see
Hades.

Silence, 342.

Silenus, 350, 381.

Simon the Just, 9, 10, 36, 475; two
high priests of that name, 36, 37.

Sirach, see under Bex Stra.

Skopzecs, the, 161.

Smith, Eli, 493.

Smith, Dean R. Payne, Syr. 7hes., 443.

Smith, W., Dict. of Greek and Roman
Biography, 223; Dict. of Bible, 467,
see under Plumptre, Westcott.

Smith, Prof. W. Robertson, see under
Robertson Smith. Ξ

Snake charmer, 425.

Socialistic movement, the, 165.

Solomon, buildings of, 326; vineyards
and gardens of, 327; pools of, 327:
attendants, 328 ; flocks, z@. ; legends
of Targum and Talmud, 81, 91; ἃ
preacher, 85; Koheleth, a name of,

General [ndex.

82; early doubts as to his author-
ship of Koheleth, 80 ff. ; arguments
for and against the traditional view,
81-124; πὸ penitential confession
of, in the Book of Koheleth, 124 ;
Apocryphal Psalter of, 487.

Song of Songs defiling the hands, 471 ff.

Sophists, the three German, 154.

Sophocles, 164, 350.

Spohler, 369, etc.

Spohn, 343, 369, passim.

Stade, B:, Lehrb. der Heb. Gramm.,
xviii., passim.

Stambul, 429.

Stanley, Dean, Jew?sh Church, 35.

Stern, J., Die Frau im Talmud, 205.

Storm theory of Umbreit, the, 249.

Strack, Prof. H, L., article on Ail/ed,
24; Einleitung in die kanan. Bicher,
xvi; Hanon des alt. Test., 12, 41, 48,
127, 451 ff. ; Prolee. Crit.in V. T.,
408, 482; edition of Adoth, 21, 245,
413.

Suicide, Pessimism conducts to, 161 ff. ;
prevalence of, 163; see under
Taubert.

Sully, James, Pessimism, a History and
a Criticism, 143, 152, 153, 156, 166.

Sun, movements of the, 21.

Sweetness of life, 232.

Swift, Dean, practice of bemoaning
day of his birth, 158.

Synagogue, Men of the Great, suc-
ceeded the Men of Hezekiah, 5;
work with respect to Canon, 5 ;
doubts. thrown by Kuenen and
Robertson Smith on the tradition
concerning, 6; 476 ff. ; arguments in
favour ‘of its historical truth, 8, 478
ff. ; solved difficulties with regard to
Book of Ecclesiastes, 11, 13, 465;
their words, 466 ; work as to liturgy,
481; appointed schools, 466, 480,
484; adoption of a new alphabet,
483; lectionary, 484; why no writ-
ten record of their actions, 484.

Synagogue services, 357, 481.

Synonymes, Arabic and post Biblical
words for, 345.

General Index.

Taanith, the Megillath, 458.

Tacitus, 111.

Talmud, the, tradition as to the suc-
cession of the Sacred Writings, 3;
451, 480, 486 ; composed of Mishna
and Gemara, 456 ; testimony regard-
ing the Men of the Great Synagogue,
453, 456; and the Old Test. Canon,
451 ff. ; the tradition in Baba Bathra,
451; onthe Sanhedrin, 486 ; legends
concerning Solomon, 91; not com-
mitted at first to writing, 456, 482 ;
see under Ben Sira, Ben Bita, Syna-
gogue,

Taubert, Der Pessimismus und seine
Gegner, 152, 158, 163, 164, 165,
167; on the Book of Koheleth, 164;
on suicide, 163; on the everlasting
torture of the wicked, 179.

Taylor, Dr. C., Sayings of the Jewish
Fathers, 9, 10, 22, 239, 245, 413, 4753
Dirge of Koheleth, xvi., 244, 250, 251,
252, 262, 263, 267, 268.

Temple services, 357.

Tennyson, 273.

Terence, 404.

Theognis, 350, 388, 434.

Thomson, Land and the Book, 259.

Thorah explained, 463.

Tosafoth, the, 457.

Tripartite nature of man, 238.

Tyler, Thos., Comm. on Lcclesiastes,
xvi., passim.

Umbreit, on Ecclesiastes, xvii. 3 storm
theory of Eccl. xii., 249, 252.
Unconscious Absolute, 155.
Unconscious Will, 156; see under
Schopenhauer, v. Hartmann,
Unreasoned Pessimism, 152.

Vaihinger, J. G., on £cclesiastes, xvii.,
passim,

Venetianer, M., Schopenhauer als
Scholastiker, 142, 150, 159, 170, 212.

Vineyards, 326.

Virgil, 224, 309, 314, 367, 369.

Volck, see under AViihlau.

Voltaire, Précis del’ Ecelésiaste en vers,
227.

515
Vows, 360, 361.

Ward, Samuel, Zife of Faith in Death,
240.

Wardlaw, R., xiv., xvii.

Wedel, 241.

Westcott, Prof., article on Ecclesiasticus,
34; Westcott and Hort’s Greek Test.,
222, 376.

de Wette, 462, 476.

Wetzstein, Consul J. G., 270, 271.

White, Henry, Massacre of St. Bartholo-
mew, 219.

White and black garments, 410.

Will to live, 158, see under Schopen-
hauer ; will and representation, 155 ;
will and desire, 157.

Wilson, Andrew, Abode of Snow, 182.

Wine, use of, 325.

Winer, 313, De wtriusque Sirach. etate,
34; Bibl. Realwirterbuch, 35.

Winzer, Comm. de Koh. chap. xi. xii,
xvii., passim.

Wisdom, the Book of, leaning towards
Greek philosophy, 35; composed
before time of Philo, 56; probably
in reign of Physcon, 57; viewed as
inspired, by some of the Fathers, 57;
not the production of a Christian Jew,
58; views of Noack and Plumptre,
58, 59; written under name of Solo-
mon, 60; strange denial of this by
Rev. D. Johnston, 60 ; its author not
guilty of imposture, 61; his object
in assuming the mask of Soiomon, 61 ;
favourable conception of character of
Svlomon, 64; opposed to the free-
thinkers of Alexandria, 67 ; value of,
72, 735 allusions to its phraseology
in the New Test., 74; a preparative
for Christ, 76.

Witsius, 241.

Women, Koheleth’s description of evil,
202 ; degradation of, under Fersian
tule, 202 ; a treasure or a snare, 393;
Koheleth no hater of, 206; proverbs
relating to, 204 ff. ; women’s rights,
207 ; low views of, held by Pessimists,
207; one-sided evidence on, 208 ;

516

Schopenhauer on women’s intellec-
tual powers, 208 ; on their morality,
207 ff. ; von Hartmann on the want
of rectitude in, 209; education of,
210 ; Vv. Hartmann on the advantage
of society of, 211; Venetianer’s
critique of Schopenhauer's views
of, 212; Pessimists on polygamy
and monogamy, 170, 212; degra-
dation of, an outcome of Atheism,
213; woman, a help-meet for man,
214.

Woodcutters, liable to dangers, 423.

Wordsworth, Bishop, xvii., passim, 237,
238.

Wright, Ὁ, Η. H., Bampton Lectures
on Zechariah, 8, 222, 267, 326, 332,
351, 391, 420, 482.

Wright, Prof, William, Arabic Gram-

General Index:

mar, 250, 264, 279, 281, 320, 4333
Facsimiles of Ancient MSS, 490.

Wright, Prof. E. Perceval, Animal
Life, 261,

Wiinsche, Dr. Aug., Die Vorstellungen
vom LZustande nach dem Tode nach
Apokrypha, 73; Bibliotheca Rabbinica,
xix., 206,

Xenophon, 366.

Young, Rev. Loyal, Comm. on Eccle-
Sstastes, ‘Xvil., 142.

Zirkel, G., Untersuchungen tiber den
Prediger, ix., xvil., passim,

Zockler, Prof. Otto, Der Prediger, xvii.,
passim.

Zuckermandel, 49, 468.

Butler & Tanner, The Selwood Printing Works, Frome, and London,

THEOLOGICAL AND OTHER WORKS

BY

CHARLES H. H. WRIGHT, D.D., PH.D.

CRITICAL COMMENTARIES ON THE OLD
TESTAMENT.

Zechariah and his Prophecies considered in relation to Modern
Criticism, with a Grammatical and Critical Commentary and New
Translation, (The Bampton Lectures for 1878,) London: Hodder ἃ
Stoughton. 1879. Second Edition. Price 14s,

“No one acquainted with Dr. Wright’s earlier publications will need to be told that
the Hebrew scholarship of this volume is of a high order. The admirable grammatical
commentary at the end constitutes, as some will think, the chief ornament of the book.”—
Rev. T. K. Cheyne, M.A., late Fellow and Hebrew Lecturer, Balliol College, Oxford, in the
Academy.

“ΤᾺΣ writer is a learned man, who has not lightly undertaken his task, and who has com-
pleted it with the most conscientious assiduity. Those who wish to be convinced of this must
necessarily consult the critical and grammatical commentary, which bears witness on every page
of great accuracy and extensive reading.”—Pref. Dr. «4. Kuerien, of the University of Leyden,
in the Theologisch Tijdschrift.{ Translated] ᾿

“Ich geBe Ihnen vollig recht dazu, dass Zacharia cap. 9 ὅς 544. nachexilisch sind ; ich habe
die Aussicht der 5. g. historisch-kritischen Schule stets fiir abaurd gehalten. Ihre Belesenheit in
der deutschen theologischen Literatur ist erstaunlich.”—Prof, Dr. Wellhausen, Univ, of
Greifswald, now in Halle.

“ΑΒ der deutschen Fachliteratur kaum eine Broschiire oder Abhandlung der Zeitschriften
von nur einigem Werthe sich hat entgehen lassen, . . (Der kritische und grammatische
Commentar] viel schatzbares Material enthalt, und den Beweis giebt, dass der Verf. ernstlich
bemiiht gewesen ist, seiner Arbeit eine solide sprachliche Grundlage zu sichern. . . Dieser
Anhang ist reich an belehrenden Einzelheiten.”—Praf. Dr. C. Siegfried, Univ. of Fena, in the
Géttingische gelehrte Anzeigen.

“Der Commentar von Wright iiber denselben Propheten verrith eingehende Gelehrsamkeit
und massvolles Urtheil ; in kritischer Bezichung steht der Verf. auf dem Boden des strengsten
Conservativismus.”—Prof. Dr. E. Kautzsch, in Wissenschaftl. Fahresbericht iiber die Morgen-
landischen Studien (D.M.G.) im Fakre 1879.

“We are not prepared to endorse all the conclusions at which the learned author has
arrived, but we are bound to testify to the candour and impartiality, as well as to the learning and
ability displayed in them. As a sample of honest and accurate criticism, of wide and varied
information, of reverent and sober treatment of the divine oracles, this volume may take its stand
amongst the best specimens of modern Biblical investigation.”-—-The Right Rev. W. Pakenham
Walsh, D.D., Bishop of Ossory, in the Churchutan’s Shilling Magazine,

“One of the most important contributions to the study of Scripture which has appeared in
England for many years. . . . Mr. Wright is well able to hold his own against any of the
German critics. His book shows wide and accurate reading in Biblical criticism. He is evidently
a man of sound and independent judgment. He never substitutes vituperation for argument,
or evades for one moment the difficulties he undertakes to meet. . . . After reading his book
through with great care, we have scarcely found a word to which a Catholic need object,”—Rev,
WB, Addis, in the Dublin Review [Roman Catholic].

i. Characterised by sound scholarship, wide erudition, and sober judgment—qualities very
necessary in handling the apocalyptic and eschatalogical visions of Zechariah. It is indispensable

to the student of this obscure and difficult Prophet."—Rev, Samuel Cox, D.D., in The
Expositor.

The Bampton Lecturer for 1878 has produced an elaborate and learned commentary on
Zechariah, There is no doubt as to his candour and erudition.” IVestminster Review.

“By far the most instructive, critical, and most scholarly commentary yet published by any
English commentator on the subject.”—Eyglish Churchman.

‘* Dr. Wright has produced a very valuable and exhaustive monograph. He has furnished
us with such an abundance of sound philological criticism in his noble and scholarly book, that
we heartily recommend it to all earnest students of Holy Scripture.”—Ecclesiastical Gazette
(England).

“Tt is incomparably the best commentary hitherto published by an English author on
Zechariah. It is the fruit of great industry and sound scholarship, of wide erudition combined
with sober judgment.” —British Quarterly Review.

“We congratulate the disestablished Church of Ireland:in possessing so learned, so sober,
and so acute a scholar.” Fohn Bull.

“Its scholarship is of a high order, the ability manifested is most conspicuous ; the research
is so thorough that nothing of importance seems to have escaped the author, and the tone and
temper shown throughout are such as is rarely seen in the heated atmosphere of theological
warfare.”—Daily Review. ᾿

“Tt is on the whole scholarly, reasonable, strong. It will quicken and guide exegetical
study. It will teach men to look with boldness and composure on questions of criticism ; it sets
an example of respect and Christian charity towards opponents, and on all these points claims
grateful acknowledgment from Biblical scholars.”—Preshyterian Review (New York).

The Book of Genesis in Hebrew, with a critically-revised Text,
Various Readings, and Grammatical and Critical Notes, London and
Edinburgh: Williams & Norgate. 1859. Price $s.

“This work bears satisfactory evidence of most commendable diligence and accurate scholar-

ship. It supplies a defect much felt in our English exegetical literature, and will prove a very
useful manual, even to advanced scholars.”—Euglish Churchman,

‘*No one can fail to admit that this work is a most valuable contribution to a department of
literature in which the English have not excelled, Its eminently scholarly character is sure to
recommend it.”—Clerical Journal.

““ We consider the book highly creditable to the learning and the judgment of the editor, and
we think he has conferred a great benefit on Hebrew students by its publication,”—Lrverary
Churchman

The Book of Ruth in Hebrew, with a critically-revised Text,

Various Readings, including a new collation of twenty-eight Hebrew MSS.

(most of them not previously collated), and a Grammatical and Critical

Commentary, to which is appended the Chaldee Targum, with various

Readings, and a Chaldee Glossary. London: Williams & Norgate.
Leipzig: L. Denicke. 1864. Price 7s. 6d.

“The work is full and complete. Jt is highly creditable to the learning, talents, and

philological attainments of Mr. Wright. . . . Mr. Wright has given the Targum, with various
readings, and an excellent Glossary to it, which will introduce the student to an acquaintance

with Chaldee, The Critical and Grammatical Commentary on the Hebrew text is thorough and
clear, omitting nothing that can throw light on the construction and meaning of the words, . .
The editor has executed his design in a manner that deserves the thanks of every student of
Hebrew ; and we trust that he will seen the reward of his Jabour in the use of his volume by
junior classes in the Universities. Professors could not do better than make it a text book. It is
admirably fitted for that purpose,”—A thena@um.

‘‘Beide Werke (Genesis und Ruth) sind die Friichte eines eisernen Fleisses und rithmliche
Proben einer auf der Héhe der Wissenschaft stehenden Sprachkenntniss.”—Prof Dr. Franz
Delitesch, University of Leipzig.

“Mr. Wright’s works on Genesis and Ruth display not only exact and extensive scholarship,
but an independence and soundness of judgment eminently calculated to advance Biblieal re-
searches, and prove the author's thorough competence for the philological, historical, and critica
treatment of the Scriptures,”—Dr. M. M. Kalisch, London.

“*Proben von ausgedehnter und griindlicher Kenntniss nicht nur des Hebriiischen sondern
auch der verwandten Sprachen und von kritischer Genauigkeit in Behandlung des Textes der
heiligen Schrift.”"—Praf Dr. H. L. Fleischer, University of Leipzig.

“In diesen beiden Schriften zeigt sich der Verfasser als*ein sehr griindlicher Kenner der
hebrdischen Sprache und der andern semitischen Sprachen, und.als ein Gelehrter der sich durch
seine Akribie, Gewissenhaftigkeit, Griindlichkeit und volle Vertrautheit mit dem kritisch-exege-
tischen Apparat, und der neuen exeget. Literatur besonders auszeichnet.—Praf Dr. Chwolson,
University of St. Petersburg.

“*T have already expressed my high opinion of your work on Genesis, but your recent edition
of Ruth ought to go even more decidedly in your favour. It isa work of pure Hebrew scholar-
ship, in which exact knowledge, critical acumen, and diligent research have been brought to bear
upon the text of Ruth, and in which all those niceties which the commentator may pass over with
alight hand have been carefully treated."—The Very Rev. R. Payne Smith, D.D., Dean of
Canterbury, late Regius Professor af Divinity, Oxford.

“It displays an estimable knowledge of Hebrew and the Oriental languages, a punctilious ac-
curacy in grammatical and critical matters, and an uncommon acquaintance with the literature of
the subject, the German included.” —T'e date Prof. Dr. Hermann Hupfeld, Universily of Halle.

“Durch diese Arbeiten [upon Genesis and Rzth] hat er nicht nur seine Gelehrsamkeit und
wissenschaftliche Genauigkeit documentirt, sondern auch mit vielem Geschick die dem Stand-
punkte des Hebrew Student angemessene Methode befolgt.’—7he late Prof. Dr. Réodiger
University of Berlin,

The Book of Koheleth, commonly called Ecclesiastes, considered
τς in relation to Modern Criticism and to the Doctrines of Modern Pessimism,
with a Critical and Grammatical Commentary and a Revised Translation.
(The Donnellan Lectures for 1880-1.) London: Hodder and Stoughton.

1883. Price 125.

“Ich fiihle mich gedringt Ihnen einmal in einem besonderen Schreiben auszusprechen, dass
die Lektiire Ihres so gelehrten und von so griindlicher Kenntnis auch der deutschen Literatur
zeugenden Buches mir von grossem Interesse ist, und dass dasselbe nach meiner Ueberzeugung
bald einen geachteten Platz unter den Koheleth behandelnden. Schriften einnehmen wird. Beson-
ders gelungen erscheinen mir Ihre Erdterungen tiber den Unterschied des modernen und des
biblischen Pessimismus.”—Prof. Dr. H. L. Strack, Univ. of Bertin.

“Bei mancher Differenz in Einzelheiten bin ich lebhaft erfreut hinsichtlich der Hauptprob-
eme betreffend Gesammtauffassung, zeitliche Lage, ethischen Standpunct des Buches die
Resultate Ihrer Studien so vielfach mit den meinigen convergirend zu finden. . . . Es hat mich
iiberrascht und mit aufrichtiger Anerkennung erfiillt bei einem durch Ort und Sprache den
Bewegungen der wissenschaftlichen Theologie in Deutschland 50 fern geriickten Gelehrten durch-
gangig so deutliche Specimina einer eingehenden Beschaftigung und genauen Bekanntschaft mit
denselben zu finden; eine so gerechte Wiirdigung ihrer Erwerbungen, eine so wissenschaftlich
gehaltene Ablchnung ihrer Irrthiimer.”—Professor Dr. Paul Kleinert, Univ. of Berlin,

MISCELLANEOUS WORKS.

A Grammar of the Modern Irish Language, designed for the use
of the Classes in the University of Dublin. Second edition, revised and
enlarged, London: Williams & Norgate. Dublin: Hodges, Foster &
Figgis. 1860.

The Fatherhood of God, and its relation to the Person and Work
of Christ, and the Operations of the Holy Spirit. Edinburgh: T. & T.
Clark. London: Hamilton, Adams ἃ Co. 1867. Price 55.

“As a writer, the author is most vigorous, and as an interpreter of Scripture he is exceedingly
cautious lest he should hang a false inference on any special text.”—Record.

be A very clear and readable treatise. . + We cannot but respect the reverent, judicious,
and broad spirit in which his distinctive views are put forth.”—Zibdiotheca Sacra (Boston, U.S.A.).

“Plus conciliante que polémique. M. Wright, qui s'est déja fait connaitre par les travaux
d@érudition appartient dans |’Eglise anglicane au parti évangelique. . . . Sa tractation se
recommande par un mérite qui lui est propre, la grande clarté exegétique qu'il met dans la dis-
cussion des points controversés.” —Bulletin Theologigue (Paris.)

Memoir of John Lovering Cooke, formerly Gunner in the Royal
Artillery, and late Lay Agent of the British. Sailors’ Institute, Boulogne ;
with a Sketch of the Indian Mutiny of 1857-8, up to the final capture of
Lucknow. London: James Nisbet & Co., 21, Berners Street. Second
Edition, with Illustrations, 1878. Price 3s.

“This little book should be read by mothers and fathers whose sons have ‘gone for soldiers.”
It will show them what a private soldier can do for the honour and glory of God.”—Sunday at
Home (Article, May, 1874, p. 312)-

‘*His memoir is interestingly written ; and while no one can read his book without pleasure
and advantage, it is especially suitable for barrack club-rooms, and for places where soldiers or
sailors congregate."—London Quarterly Review.

Dublin University Reform and the Divinity School—Four
Pamphlets, with a General Preface and Appendix. Dublin: Hodges,
Foster ἃ Figgis. 1879. Cloth. Price 2s.

The Divinity School and the Divinity Degrees of the University
of Dublin, Dublin: Hodges, Foster & Figgis. 1880. Price 6d.

WORKS IN PREPARATION.

The Book of Daniel, with a Commentary, Critical, Exegetical,
and Homiletical, forming a volume of ‘*The Pulpit Commentary.”
C. Kegan Paul & Co. London,

The Megillath Antiochos, a Jewish Apocryphon; with the Chaldee
Text in both the Western and Babylonian punctuation, together with
Hebrew and Arabic translations. Edited from MSS., with Various
Readings, an English translation, and Critical notes.

pan Oe τι, nM τ separ τις Ὁ

di

Sa

ae
wa

Sats